Oi 
0! 
0^ 

0 
1 
4 

1 
8 
3 


^ 


(, 


'ay^ 


/ 


AN  EXPOSITION 


LAW   OF    BAPTISM, 


AS     IT    RSQAJIDS 


THE  MODE  AND  THE  SUBJECTS, 


EDWIN    HALL,    A.  M. 


PASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  CONQREQATIONAL  CHCRCH,  NORWALK,  COKN. 


SECOND  EDITION — ^WITH  AN  APPENDIX. 


NORWALK,  CT. 

PUBLISHED     BT     JOHN     A.      WEED. 

NEW  YORK : 

GOULD,     NEWMAN,     AND    SAXTON 


184.0, 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1840,  by 

EDWLV  HALL, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for 

the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


8.  W.  BENEDICT,  128  FULTON  ST. 


ADVERTISEMENT 


The  following  Discourses  were  written  for 
the  Defence  of  the  truth  in  the  author's  own 
congregation.  They  are  printed  as  they 
were  preached  ;  save  a  few  inconsiderable 
corrections,  and  the  addition  of  a  few  notes. 
They  are  published  at  the. very  general  de- 
sire of  the  people  for  whom  they  were  writ- 
ten. They  contain  some  local  allusions,  and 
some  references  to  the  present  times  :  but  as 
they  may  be  both  local  and  ephemeral  in 
their  circulation,  the  author  chooses  not  to 
alter  them. 

JVorwalk,  August,  1840. 


LAW   OF    BAPTISM. 


I. 

MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

THE    PRINCIPLES  OF    INTERPRETATION. 


MATTHEW,  XXVIII  :   19. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 


The  disciples  of  Christ  are  to  be  baptized. 
So  all  evangelical  Christians  agree  :  and 
such  is  the  law  of  Christ.  But  while  there 
is  an  entire  agreement  with  regard  to  the 
authority  of  the  law,  there  has  arisen  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  concerning  its  interpreta- 
tion. All  the  leading  denominations  of  Pro- 
testant Christendom,  save  one,  (and  it  is  to 
Protestant  Christendom,  if  any  where  on 
earth,  that  we  are  to  look  for  intelligent 
views  of  doctrine  and  of  order,  and  for  evan- 
1* 


b  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

gelical  obedience,)  all  the  leadinor  denomi- 
iiations  of  Protestant  Christendom,  save  one, 
maintain  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  es- 
sential :  and  for  this  opinion  they  go,  not  to 
the  decrees  of  the  Pope,  nor  to  the  traditions 
of  the  Papal  Church,  as  we  have  been  slan- 
derously reported,  but  to  the  Word  of  God. 
Upon  the  most  careful  examination,  and  in 
making-  the  best  and  most  scrupulous  appli- 
cation of  the  acknowledged  rules  of  inter- 
pretation that  we  are  able,  we  find  that 
sp7Hnkling  nnd  pouring  are  Scriptural  modes 
of  baptism.  Many  think  further,  (and  I  pro- 
fess myself  of  this  number,)  that  these  are 
the  only  modes  for  which  we  have  any  clear 
Scriptural  example,  or  even  clear  Scriptural 
authority,  if  any  thing  is  to  depend  upon  the 
mode.  But  we  think  nothing  depends  on  the 
mode  : — that  the  command  to  Baptize  refers 
to  the  thing  done^  rather  than  to  the  mode  of 
doing  it :  viz.,  to  a  ritual  purifying  by  some 
manner  of  application  of  water  :  and  in  which 
the  mode  of  the  application  is  a  matter  of  en- 
tire indifference ;  provided  it  be  done  de- 
cently and  reverently,  as  becomes  an  ordi- 
nance of  God.  Hence,  we  regard  immersion 
as  valid  baptism  j  and  never  refuse  to  admin- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  7 

ister  it  in  that  mode,  when  the  candidate  for 
baptism  cannot  be  satisfied  in  conscience 
with  any  other. 

But  while  we  believe  these  things,  another 
large  denomination  of  Christians  deem  it  es- 
sential to  baptism,  that  the  whole  body  he  im- 
mersed:  and  so  essential,  that  they  refuse  to 
be  united  in  church  membership,  or  to  par- 
take, even  occasionally,  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per in  company  with  others  who  hold  the 
same  Gospel  truth  and  order;  who  are  of  ac- 
knowledged piety  ;  who,  according  to  their 
best  understanding,  and  with  the  full  convic- 
tion  of  their  conscience,  have  been  baptized ; 
who  differ  from  themselves  only  in  not  hav- 
ing been  Avholly  under  water  in  the  manner 
of  their  baptism  ;  and  who,  were  they  to  be 
convinced  that  immersion  is  essential  to 
baptism,  would  as  soon  throw  their  bodies 
into  the  fire  as  refuse  to  be  immersed.  Their 
fault  is  not  wilful  disobedience  :  it  is  not  neg. 
led ;  it  is  not  any  want  of  candor  or  diligence 
in  examining  the  question  concerning  the 
mode  of  baptism  ;  it  is  solely  this  ;  instead 
of  subjecting  their  judgment  and  conscience, 
in  this  matter,  to  the  authority  of  their  Bap- 
tist brethren,  they  have  presumed  to  follow 


8  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

their  own  judgment  and  their  oiv}i  conscience 
as  enlightened  by  a  careful  study  of  the 
word  of  God. 

"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  That 
word  shall  judge  us  in  the  last  day,  and  by 
that  will  we  be  determined  now. 

In  our  investigation  of  the  mode  of  Bap- 
tism, I  shall  first  remark  concerning  the 
principles  of  interprelalio/i  to  be  applied  or  ad- 
mitted in  determining  this  question. 

Then,  I  shall,  upon  the  basis  of  these  prin- 
ciples, institute  three  inquiries : 

1.  What  would  the  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ  understand  from  the  simple  face  of  the 
command  "  Baptize.''^ 

2.  Is  there  satisfactory  evidence,  that  they  al. 
ways  administered  the  ordinance  of  baptism  by 
immersion. 

3.  On  the  supposition  that  our  Lord  was  bap- 
tized in  a  given  mode,  and  that  the  apostles  al- 
ways practised  that  mode; — is  there  evidence 
that  they  considered  thai  one  mode  essential. 

The  preliminary  remarks  concerning  the 
principles  of  interpretation ;  together  with  an  ap- 
plication of  those  principles  to  the  method  of 
arguing  employed  by  our  Baptist  brethren, 
will  occupy  this  first  discourse.     I  shall  be 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  9 

obliged  to  take  up  subjects  rather  foreign 
from  the  common  field  of  sermonizing  ;  and 
such  as  are  rather  scholastic,  and  not  very 
interesting  to  a  mixed  assembly.  I  shall  be 
obliged  to  tax  your  patience  somewhat :  but 
I  will  make  the  matter  as  clear  and  as  inter- 
esting  as  I  can  :  and  discuss  no  topic  which 
you  will  not  perceive  to  have  a  weighty  bear- 
ing upon  the  argument  before  we  get  through. 
In  the  next  discourse  I  shall  come  at  once 
into  the  midst  of  the  matter  :  and  I  entertain 
little  fear,  that  I  shall  be  able  to  show  you 
the  truth,  on  this  subject,  broadly  and  solidly 
based  on  the  word  of  God. 

There  cannot  be  much  Gospel  in  such  a 
discussion  as  this  ;  as  the  whole  genius  of 
the  Gospel  is  averse  to  disputations  about 
the  mere  modes  of  rites  and  ordinances.  I 
will  try,  however,  to  discuss  the  matter  in 
the  spirit  of  the  Gospel ;  and  will  endeavor 
to  bring  in  as  much  of  the  Gospel  of  salva- 
tion as  a  disputation  about  the  mere  ceremo- 
ny of  an  ordinance  will  admit.     I  proceed 

I.  TO  THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION  TO 
BE  APPLIED  OR  ADMITTED  IN  DETERMINING 
THIS  CASE. 

Sir  William  Blackstone,  in  his  "  Commen- 


10  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

taries  on  the  Laws  of  England,"  cites  the 
following  example  for  the  purpose  of  illus- 
trating one  of  the  principles  on  which  laws 
are  to  be  interpreted.* 

"  A  law  of  Edward  III.  forbids  all  ecclesi- 
astical persons  to  purchase  provisions  at 
Rome."  Now  the  word  "  provisions^''  com- 
monly means  ''  victuals  ;"  "  things  to  eat ;" 
and  at  first  sight  the  law  of  Edward  III. 
seems  to  forbid  the  purchasing  of  victuals ; — 
meat, — grain, — eatables, — at  Rome. 

Suppose  now,  on  a  debate  concerning  the 
import  of  this  law,  one  should  say,  "  The 
law  is  express:  it  says  '•'' provisions ^^"^  and 
provisions  are  "  victuals.'^''  Granted  :  such 
is  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word. 
Suppose  he  should  urge  it ;  and  bring  a  hun- 
dred dictionaries,  in  all  of  which  the  first 
and  most  common  meaning  of  the  word 
'"'■provisions^''  should  be  '•^  victuals,^''  Sup- 
pose, when  I  question  whether  the  law  meant 
victuals,  and  endeavor  to  give  my  reasons, 
he  should  lift  up  his  hand  toward  the  sun, 
and  cry,  "  It  is  as  plain  as  the  sun  in  the 
heavens,  and  the  man  who  does  not  see  it  is 
not  worth  arguing  with  :  all  the  dictionaries 
say  so  :  it  has  been  conceded  a  thousand  times 
*  Blackstone,  Introduction,  §  2,  3. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  11 

that  ^provisions''  means  ^victuals'  "   Suppose 
he   should  go  further  5    suppose  he   should 
hunt  up  the  word  '"'"provisions''''  as  used  in  all 
the    classic   English  authors  from  the  days 
of  Chaucer  and   Spencer,  and  show  in  ten 
thousand  instances  that  the  word  provisions 
means  victuals :   and  that,  even  in  its  Jigura 
tive  uses,  it  still  refers  to  something  to  support 
and   nourish :    e.  g.   as  when  Mrs.  Isabella 
Graham   selected  a,  multitude  of    texts    of 
Scripture  calculated  to  give  her  comfort  in 
death,  she  called  them  "  Provisions  for  pass, 
ing  over  Jordan."    "  Here,"  says  the  stickler 
for  "  victuals,^''  "  Here  I  take  my  stand.'"*    "  If 
I  have  not  settled  the   meaning  of  the  word 
''provisions^''  nothing  can  he  settled^     And  so 
he  stretches  the  law  to   his  dictionaries  and 
classics.     Provisions  shall  mean    victuals : 
and  all  further  reasoning  is  barred  away  from 
any  concern  in  settling  the  question. 

You  have  here,  if  I  mistake  not,  and  as  I 
think  I  shall  be  able  to  show,  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Baptist  principles  of  arguing 
concerning  the  question  at  issue. 

But  no,  says  Blackstone  ;  see  first  for  what 
reason  the  law  was  made.  Search  out  the 
meaning  of  the  word  '■^ provisions'^  as  used 
in  the  "  Canon  law''  of  those  days. 


12  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  The  law,"  saysBlackstone,  *'  might  seem 
to  prohibit  the  buying  of  grain  and  other 
victuals  :  but  when  we  consider  that  the  stat- 
ute  was  made  to  repress  the  usurpations  of 
the  Papal  See,  and  that  the  nominations  to 
benefices  by  the  Pope  were  called  provisions^ 
we  shall  see  that  the  restraint  is  intended  to 
be  laid  on  svch  provisions  only." 

The  word  ^^  provisions'^  in  this  law  of  Ed- 
ward III.  does  not  mean  grain  or  victuals,  or 
stores  of  any  kind  :  but,  "  nominations  to  ec- 
clesiastical benefices  by  the  Pope'^  and  for 
this  law,  people  may  purchase  as  much  meat 
and  grain  and  other  victuals  at  Rome  as  they 
please.  The  decision  of  Blackstone  carries 
all  common  sense  with  it.  Away  go  the 
hundred  dictionaries  and  the  ten  thousand 
quotations  from  the  classics.  No  matter 
how  many  times  it  might  have  been  "  con- 
ceded" that  the  word  provisions  commonly 
means  something  to  eat : — Blackstone  him- 
self makes  the  same  concession,  and  still 
maintains  his  interpretation  of  the  law. 
Why  do  I  introduce  this  ? 

For  the  purpose  of  exposing  a  false  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation,  and  of  showing  what 
is  the  true  one. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  13 

If  it  should  be  proved  indubitably,  (which 
it  cannot  be.)  that  the  word  Baptizo  (  ^'aTn^'o;) 
in  classic  Greek  means  only  to  immerse  ; — 
to  immerse  the  subject  w)Ao//?/y  this  would 
not  settle  the  question  that  the  command  to 
Baptize  in  the  New  Testament  means  indis- 
pensably to  immerse. 

Why  would  it  noil 

The  Greek  of  Judea  was  not  clasiic 
Greek.  The  classic  Greek  writers  lived  in 
other  countries.  They  were  familiar 
with  another  set  of  ideas, — especially  on 
religious  matters.  The  Greek  language  in 
their  hands  was  adapted  to  the  religious 
ideas  of  heathen :  in  the  hands  of  Jews 
it  was  adapted  to  the  religious  ideas  of 
those  who  were  acquainted  with  the  true 
God. 

More  particularly  : — The  Greek  was  not 
introduced  into  Judea  till  after  the  time 
of  Alexander,  300  years  before  Christ. 
It  prevailed  very  gradually ;  its  genius 
received  a  mould  from  the  genius  of 
the  Hebrew ;  Greek  words  were  applied 
to  Jewish  ideas;  and  to  ideas  which 
2 


14  310DE  OF  BArXISM. 

had  never  been  compounded  into  an  exist- 
ence in  tne  land  of  classic  Greeii.  The 
Hebrew  continued  to  be  spoken  with  the 
Greek:  and  it  is  even  contended  with  no 
small  force  of  argument  that  ]\Iatthew 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  which  appear- 
ed to  be  the  more  common  lancruao^e  when 
Paul  spake  to  the  people  "  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue,"  Acts  xxi.  40,  and  they  "  kept  the 
more  silence"  when  they  heard  it.  Acts 
xxii.  2. 

The  pure  Greek  of  the  old  Grecians  is 
called  Classic  Greek.  The  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament  has  been  called  the  "  Greek 
of  the  Synagogue.^'  And  every  man,  who  is 
both  a  classical  and  a  Biblical  student,  knows 
full  well  that  a  good  lexicon  (or  dictionary) 
of  the  Greek  of  the  synagogue  must  be  a 
peculiar  lexicon  of  the  New  Testament 
Greek.  And  such  we  have  :  elaborate  aiid 
excellent  lexicons.  But  if  we  read  the  clas- 
sic Greek  by  these,  we  shall  make  nonsense; 
and  if  we  read  the  New  Testament  altogeth- 
er by  the  classic  lexicons,  we  shall  make 
most  arrant  nonsense. 

Let  me  give  an  illustration  or  two  of  the 
effect  of  arguing  the  New  Testament  mean- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  15 

ing  from  the  original  and  from  the  classic 
use  of  a  word. 

Some  years  since,  I  met  with  a  man,  who 
was  liberally  educated,  a  thorough  scholar, 
an  able  lawyer,  and  possessed  of  splendid 
natural  abilities,  but  sceptical  in  his  views 
of  religion. 

With  this  man  I  undertook  to  reason  of 
the  necessity  of  being  born  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Now,  the  word  in  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment for  Ghost,  or  Spirit,  is  Pneuma^  (wer/io)^ 
which  originally,  and  in  the  classic  Greek, 
most  commonly  meant  wind.  This  man  would 
have  me  argue  by  book.  He  turned  me  to 
the  Greek  Testament  (John  iii.  5.)  "  See 
here,"  says  he,  "  It  reads,  and  you  know  it 
reads,  '  Verily,  Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  wind,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
What  right,"  said  he,  "  have  you  to  change 
the  original  classic  meaning  of  '  Pneuma,  \ 
(TTj/fUfxa)^  '  loind^^  here,  any  more  than  you 
have  of  '  Hudatos'  (voaros')  '  water  V  And 
see,  further,"  said  he,  ''  there  is  the  same 
word  in  the  8th  verse, — letter  for  letter, — 
and  there  you  do  not  say,  the   '  Spirit  blow- 


16  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

eth  where  it  listeth  ;'  you  say,  '  the  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth.'  " 

He  was  right  in  the  original  classic  use  of 
the  word.  And  if  I  had  argued  on  the  prin- 
ciples, on  which  (I  shall  show)  our  Baptist 
brethren  have  argued,  I  should  have  been 
obliged  to  allow,  that  the  renewing  by  the 
"  Spirit  of  God,"  or  even  the  personal  exist- 
ence of  such  a  Spirit,  is  not  taught  or  refer- 
red to  in  this  passage. 

With  all  due  respect  for  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren, I  humbly  conceive  that  in  this  matter, 
they  have  fallen  into  an  egregious  error  in 
their  attempted  corrections  of  our  common 
translation. 

I  have  seen  copies  of  the  New  Testament, 
published  by  the  Bible  Society  of  the  Bap- 
tist denomination,  in  which,  on  a  page  after 
the  title  page  they  have  printed  the  Greek  of 
such  words  as  are  adopted  from  the  Greek 
into  our  translation  ;  opposite  to  these  words 
theylprint  the  words  as  they  are  Anglicized, 
or  turned  into  an  English  shape  by  a  change 
of  their  termination  :  then,  opposite  to  each, 
a  word  which  they  maintain  is  the  necessary 
translation.     Thus, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  17 

Meaning  of  the  icords  used  intkis  translation. 

AyyjXo?,  Angel,  Messenger. 

BaTTTi^w,  Baptize,  Immerse, 

Ba-r(o-//of,     -  Baptism,  Immersion, 

It  has  been  strenuously  asserted  that  these 
words  were  not  translated  in  our  authorized 
version,  because  King  James  and  the  translat- 
ors  wished  to  shield  certain  Popish  prac- 
tices, and  to  keep  the  people  in  ignorance, 
for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  a  union  of 
Church  and  State. 

I  shall  not  trouble  myself  to  attempt  a  re- 
futation of  such  a  charge  as  this.  The  de« 
scendants  of  the  Pilgrims,  who  dwell  amid 
the  graves  of  their  lathers,  may  believe  it  if 
they  can.  They  may  deem  it  no  calumny 
upon  the  virtue  and  understanding  of  their 
Puritan  fathers,  if  they  can,  when  they  hear  it 
alleged  of  those, whose  ministers, in  hundreds, 
gave  up  their  livings ;  were  turned  out  of  the 
ministry,  and  otherwise  suffered  persecution, 
rather  than  wear  the  garments  of  popery  ; 
they  may  believe  it  if  they  can,  of  those  who 
left  their  homes  and  their  all,  and  came  to 
cast  their  fortunes  and  the  fortunes  of  their 
posterity  in  this  then  howling  wilderness, 
rather  than  conform  to  what  they  deemed  the 
2* 


18  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Popish  rites  remaining  in  the  Established 
Church  of  England ;  they  may  believe,  if 
they  can,  that  these  would  have  accepted  a 
Bib'ie  which  was  dishonestly-  translated,  for 
the  very  purpose  of  maintaining  those  relics 
of  popery  and  that  ecclesiastical  despotism^ 
which  from  their  very  souls  they  abhorred. 
You  may  believe  it  if  you  can,  of  your  min- 
isters and  yourselves,  that  we  all  cling  to  a 
dishonest  translation,  "To  keep  people  in 
ignorance"  and  to  "maintain  a  union  of 
Church  and  State."  I  shall  not  trouble  my. 
self  to  answer  such  an  allegation  as  this. 

But  to  return:— it  is  maintained  that  these 
words,  and  some  others,  are  improperly,  if 
not  dishonestly,  left  untranslated*  and  that 
the  words  which  are  given  in  the  third  co- 
lumn as  the  meaning  ought  to  be  substituted 
for  the  words  adopted  in  our  translation. 
Thus  :  where  we  read  "  CAwrcA,"f  we  ought 

♦  "  The  mass  of  readers  do  not  understand  the  ori- 
ginal,  and  translators  of  the  Bible,  by  adop'ing,  not 
translating,  have  hidden  the  meaning  from  the  multi- 
tude."   Jewett  on  Baptism,  p.  31, 

t  The  word  tKKXnaia,  (Church),  with  some  other 
words,  they  have  set  down  at  the  beginning  of  the  New 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  19 

to  read  ^^jSssembly:^^  where  we  read  ^^j^ngel" 
in  our  version,  we  ought  to  read  ''  Messen- 
ger ;"  where  we  read  "  Baptize,'^  we  ought  to 
read  ^^ Immerse:^''  and  where  we  read  ^^ Bap- 
iism^^  we  ought  to  read  "  Immersion.^' 

Now  it  appears  to  me  that  this  is  falling 
into  a  worse  error  than  that  of  the  unbeliev- 
ing scholar  concerning  the  word  Pneuma, 
(jvEvua^  or  spirit.  Thus,  '"''AngeV  is  a  Greek 
word,  not  translated,  but  adopted"^  into  the 
translation  from  the  Greek  {^yy^-'^'^i).  Our 
Baptist  brethren  insist  that  this  adoption  is 
wrong  :  that  the  word  ought  to  be  translated 
by  the  word  "  messenger ^ 

Testament  as  improperly  translated,  and  direct  us  to 
consider  the  word  "  Assembly"  as  its  meaning. 

*  Nothing  is  more  common  than  such  adoption  of 
words  from  the  Greek.  The  process  is  going  on  to  this 
day  ;  particularly  our  terras  of  science  and  of  art,  are  al- 
most wholly  adopted  (and  compounded)  from  the 
Greek.  Strike  all  such  adopted  words  from  our  lan« 
guage,  and  scarcely  could  two  people,  even  in  the  or- 
dinary walks  of  life,  hold  a  conversation  for  a  single  hour. 

"  Et  nova  fictaque  nvper  habebunt  verba  fidera,  si 
Graeco  fonte  cadant,  parce  detorta." 

"  Licuit  SEMPERQL'E  LICEBIT" 

Signatum  prsesente  nota  producere  nomen." 

Q.  Hurat.  Ars  Poetica. 


20  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Now  it  is  certainly  true,  that  in  the  clas- 
sic  Greek,  the  word  Angel  (ayycXos)  means 
messenger  ;  and  means  nothing  like  the  idea 
which  we  attribute  to  it :  viz.,  of  a  spiritual 
being  of  an  order  superior  to  man  and  infe- 
rior to  God.  The  Greeks  even  had  another 
word  to  signify  such  a  spiritual  being,  "  Be. 
mon^^  {cainuiv^^  and  Angelas  (ayy^Xo?)  meant  no- 
thing but  "  messenger.'^  But  mark  how  the 
classic  Greek  was  modified  when  adapted  to 
Jewish  ideas.  The  Jews  used  the  word 
"Z)e77i07i"  (c'atpwi')  to  express  only  an  evil 
spirit ;  ^.  fallen  angel :.  and  "  angeP  they  ap- 
propriated to  the  good  spirits.  And  to  trans- 
late the  word  in  all  cases*  as  the  Baptist  Bi- 
ble Society  would  teach  us,  instead  o{  adopt, 
ing  it  into  English,  untranslated,  would  make 
the  most  arrant  nonsense. 

For  example  :  take  Acts  xxiii.  8,  and  trans- 
late it  according  to  the  instructions  of  the 
Baptist  Bible  Society  at  the  beginning  of 
their  Testaments,  and  according  to  the  view 
of  the  doubting  scholar,  who  would  square 
every  thing  by  the   original  classic   Greek 

*  The  word  is  sometimes  used  in  the  New  Testament 
in  the  simple  sense  of  messenger  :  as  Pneuma  i»  some* 
times  in  the  simple  sense  of  toind, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  21 

meaning,  and  make  the  Savior  say  that  men 
must  be  born  of  "  water  and  of  wind.'''' 

In  our  common  version  the  passage  reads 
thus  :  "  For  the  Sadducees  say,  there'  is  no 
resurrection^  neither  angel  nor  spirit :  hut  the 
Pharisees  confess  both."  The  word  resii.r- 
rectio/i  here  falls  under  the  same  rule,  if  you 
take  its  meaning  from  the  classic  Greek. 
The  Greeks  had  no  such  idea  as  that  of  the 
resurrection  of  the  body  :  and  of  course  no 
word  for  it,  but  their  avaffracns  (^anastasis)  was  a 
simple  "  rising  up."  In  our  translation  the 
passage  reads  thus  :  "  For  the  Sadducees  say 
there  is  no  resurrection^  neither  angel  nor 
spirit ;  but  the  Pharisees  confess  both."  Ac- 
cording to  the  principles  on  which  our  trans- 
lation is  branded  as  inadequate  and  unfaith- 
ful, we  must  read  it  thus  :  For  the  Sadducees 
say  there  is  no  rising  up,  neither  messenger 
nor  WIND."  But  did  they  ever  say  sol  Did 
they  ever  deny  the  existence  of  a  such  a 
thing  as  a  messenger  or  of  such  a  thing  as 
wind?  To  translate  it  so,  is  to  make  the 
Bible  speak  not  only  nonsense  but  falsehood. 

The  same  reason  existed  for  converting 
the  Greek  Baptizo  into  the  English  Baptize^ 
as  for  converting  Angdos  into  Angel.  There 


22  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

was  no  word  in  English  which  would  fill  up 
the  idea.  If  baptism  was  to  be  performed 
by  sprinkling,  it  would  not  do  to  translate 
Baptizo  by  the  word  sprinkle^  because  all 
sprinkling  is  not  baptism.  If  baptism  were 
exclusively  by  immersion^  still  the  word  im- 
merse would  not  express  the  whole  or  the 
essential  idea  :  and  all  immersion  is  not  bap- 
tism. The  word  Baptize  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment refers  less  to  the  manner  of  the  appli- 
cation of  water,  than  to  the  design  and  import 
of  the  application  :  it  is  a  sacred  application  : 
a  ritual  application  :  denoting  a  ritual  ^wri/y- 
ing,  and  referring  to  an  important  and  essential 
truth  for  its  signification.  The  New  Testa- 
ment use  of  the  word  involved  a  reference 
to  these  ideas,*  just  as  the  word  Baptize  does 
now  :  and  neither  of  the  words  sprinkle,  pour, 
immerse,  has  the  essential  quality  of  refer- 
ring to  these  ideas.  Thus :  if  I  go  and 
throw  myself  off  from  one  of  the  wharves  at 
high  tide,  I  am  immersed  beyond  question  : 
but  am  I  baptized  ?     Our  young  men   and 

*  See  an  able  article  in  the  Am.  Biblical  Repository 
from  the  pen  of  Prest.  Edward  Bcechcr :  where  this 
point  is  most  thoroughly  made  out.  Am.  Bib.  Rep. 
Jan.  1840. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  23 

boys  immerse  themselves  many  times  every 
summer,  but  are  they  baptized  %  I  think  all 
would  deem  it  improper  to  say  so.  The 
fundamental  idea  of  baptism  is  wanting. 

It  would  therefore  be  an  inadequate  and 
improper  translation  to  substitute  the  word 
immerse  for  the  word  baptize^  in  every  place 
in  the  New  Testament :  as  much  as  it  would 
to  make  that  substitution  which  should  make 
the  Sadducees  deny  the  existence  of  such  a 
thing  as  a  "  messenger,"  or  "  wind."  The 
translators  of  our  Bible  as  intelligent  and 
honest  men,  could  not  translate  "  Baptizo^^ 
by  "  Immerse'^  on  this  ground  alone  :  and  I 
shall  show  that  they  could  not  on  another  : 
as  in  the  New  Testament  the  word  denotes 
often  an  application  of  water  (or  of  some- 
thing else,)  by  sprinkling  or  by  pouring.  It 
is  used  often  where  the  idea  of  immersion  is 
entirely  excluded. 

Indeed,  if  any  fault  is  to  be  found  with  the 
word  Baptize,  as  though  it  were  a  Greek 
word  instead  of  a  translation  ;  precisely  the 
same  objection  applies  to  the  words  "■  Im- 
merse'^ and  "  Immersion.''''  These  are  as  purely 
Latin,  as  "  Baptize"  is  Greek :  and  we  might 
with  the  same  propriety  turn  round  and  say, 


24  BIODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Why  do  you  not  translate  those  Latin  words  \ 
Do  you  mean  to  "  keep  people  in  ignorance," 
and  "  promote  a  union  of  Church  and  State," 
by  talking  to  the  people,  like  the  Pope,  in 
Latin  1 

But  what  words  could  they  substitute  for 
these  \  There  is  no  one,  word  which  fills  up 
the  idea  of  immerse.  "  -Di/?,"  and  "p/ww^e," 
and  "  duck^''  are  English  words :  but  they 
cannot  be  substituted  for  the  word  immerse  ; 
though  they  come  nearer  to  it  than  any  other 
word  in  the  language.  Shall  we  translate 
immerse  by  "  Dip.^'  I  dip  my  pen  in  ink 
when  I  write :  I  do  not  immerse  it  in  ink. 
Shall  we  say  '''■plunge?^''  ^ui  2i\\0Yse  plunges 
often  without  being  immersed ;  and  to 
"  Duck''^  is  only  to  dip  the  head  under  water. 

To  my  mind,  the  noise  that  is  made  about 
the  non-translation  of  the  word  Baptize,  is 
utterly  without  foundation.  To  adopt  the 
principles  on  which  the  noise  is  made,  and 
carry  them  out,  would  lead  to  gross  absurd- 
ity. To  say  that  people  would  never  have 
made  any  question  about  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism if  the  word  had  only  been  translated 
immerse^  is  only  to  say  that  if  the  word  had 
been  improperly  translated,  the  people  would 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  25 

have  been  misled.  There  is  no  reason  in 
the  world,  that  I  know  of,  for  thinking  that 
our  translators  were  either  ignorant  or  dis- 
honest in  this  matter.  Had  they  not  turned 
Bajptizo  into  an  English  word,  they  must 
have  expressed  it  by  a  circumlocution  that 
would  have  amounted  to  a  gloss,*  rather  than 
a  translation,  or  they  must  have  coined  a 
new  word  for  the  purpose. 

Besides,  while  so  large  a  part  of  the  learn- 
ed world  fully  believe  that  Baptism  in  the 
New  Testament  often  signified  an  applica- 
tion of  water  which  was  performed  by 
sprinkling  or  by  pouring  ;  how  could  we 
have  a  Bible  in  w^hich  all  denominations 
may  agree,  if  we  insist  upon  translating  the 
word  Baptize  either  by  "  immerse^''  by 
''^four^''  or  by  "  sprinkle  V  Were  there  no 
other  reason,  this  would  be  sufficient  for 
adopting  the  original  word,  instead  of  trans- 
lating it  by  either. 

And  yet,  our  Baptist  brethren  have  broken 
off  from  the  national  Bible  Society,  for  the 
very  reason  that  it  will  not  be  thus  instru- 

*  E.  g.  How  could  the  word  TievrnKoarrji  (Pentecost) 
Acts.  ii.  1,  have  been  managed,  save  by  adopting  the 
very  word,  or  by  making  a  gloss,  rather  than  a  trans' 
lation  ? 

3 


26  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

mental  in  putting  forth  to  the  world  a  sec- 
tarian Bible  !  They  have  a  denominational 
Bible  Society,  entitled  the  "  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society^'''  which  issues  its  for- 
eign translations  on  the  principle  of  substi- 
tuting the  word  immerse  for  baptize  :  and  by 
their  notes  at  the  beginning  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament they  have,  in  effect,  done  the  same 
for  the  English  translation  :  with  how  little 
reason,  I  have  shown. 

I  say  not  this  out  of  disrespect  or  fault- 
finding. The  right  of  conscience  and  of 
private  judgment  is  theirs.  Most  freely, 
with  no  disturbance  or  complaint  on  our 
part,  let  them  enjoy  it.  I  only  aim  to  point 
out,  what  I  consider  the  error  of  the  princi- 
ple. Whether  I  have  succeeded,  you  will 
judge.  We  impeach  not  their  integrity  in 
the  least.  Would  that  our  integrity  in  this 
matter,  and  our  rights  of  conscience  and  of 
private  judgment  might  be  equally  respected. 
But  it  is  with  no  less  grief  than  astonishment, 
that  I  read  in  the  papers  the  last  month,  the 
following  "  Resolution'''  of  the  "  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society"  at  their  anniver- 
sary on  the  28th  of  April  of  the  present  year.* 

*  It  was  moved  by  Prof.  Eaton,  of  Hamilton  Insti- 
tute,  and  eeconded  by  Rev.  Mr.  Malcolm. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  27 

"  Resolved^  that  the/ac/,  that  the  nations  of 
the  earth  must  now  look  to  the  Baptist  deno.m- 

IXATION     ALO^■E     FOR      FAITHFUL    TRANSLATIONS 

OF  THE  WORD  OF  GoD,  a  responsibility  is  im- 
posed upon  them,  demanding  for  its  full 
discharge,  an  unwonted  degree  of  union,  of 
devotion,  and  of  strenuous  and  persevering 
effort  throughout  the  entire  body." 

That  our  Baptist  brethren  mean  to  be  faith- 
ful in  translating  the  word  of  God,  we  doubt 
not.  But  are  w^e  to  believe  that  all  the  mis- 
sionaries of  Protestant  Christendom  through- 
out  the  world,  save  "  the  Baptist  denomination 
alone,"  have  given  to  the  poor  heathen  un- 
faithful translations  of  the  Avord  of  God  1 
Can  no  '"''  faithful  translation'  come  from  any 
denomination  on  earth  save  one?*  Are  '"  the 

*  In  the  report  of  the  Am.  and  For.  Bible  Society, 
for  1840,  (p.  39),  the  translations  made  by  all  other 
denominations  are  stigmatized  as  "  Versions  in  whicli 
the  real  meanings  of  .  .  .  words,  is  purposely  kept  out 
OF  SIGHT  :".  .  .  so  that  "  Baptists  cannot  circulate /aiM- 
ful  versions  .  .  .  unless  they  print  them  at  their  own  ex. 
pensc."  They  ask,  (p.  40).  "  Shall  we  look  on  un- 
concernedly while  unfaithful  versions  (as  we  hold  them) 
are  circulated."  They  assert,  (p.  45)  "  It  is  known  that 
the  British  and  For.  Bible  Society,  and  the  American 
Bible  Society,  have  virtually  combined  to  obscure   at 


28  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

nations  of  the  earth,"  according  to  the  tenor 
of  this  resolution,  dependent  on  "  the  Baptist 
denomination  alone*^  for  this '? 

Having  remarked  so  far  upon  the  princi- 
ples of  interpretation,  I  come  now  to  make 
an  application  of  those  principles  to  the  mode 
of  arguing  adopted  by  our  Baptist  brethren. 

least  a  part  of  Divine  Revelation  :" — and  that  "  these 
societies  .  .  .  continue  to  circulate  versions  of  the  Bible 
unfaithful,  at  least  so  far  as  the  subject  of  baptism  is 
concerned  ;  and  that  they  are  by  this  means  propagat- 
ing their  j)eculiar  sentiments  under  the  auspices,  and 
at  the  expense  of  the  millions  of  all  denominations  who 
contribute  to  their  funds  ;  and  who  are  thus  made  the 
unconscious  instruments  of  diffusing  the  opinions  of  a 
party,  instead  of  the  uncorrupted  icord  of  Jehovah.'" 

This  last  paragraph  is  not  less  remarkable  for  its  de- 
liberate charge  of  dishonesty  upon  all  other  denomina- 
tions than  for  its  singidar  admission  of  that,  which  if  it 
be  a  fact, — it  seems  to  me, — is  fatal  to  the  immersion 
scheme.  The  allegation  is,  that  to  transfer  haptizo 
into  BAPTIZE,  instead  of  rendering  it  by  the  word  Im- 
merse, is  to  "  propagate  the  peculiar  sentiments'^  of  Psedo- 
baptists.  That  is,  the  word  haptizo  is  so  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  almost  without  fail,  to  lead  those 
who  learn  its  meaning  frdra  the  Bible  alone  to  conclude 
that  it  does  not,  in  the  Bible,  mean  immersion  :  and  if 
you  leave  people  to  learn  its  meaning  from  the  context 
for  themselves,  you  '^propagate  the  pccidiar  sentiments" 
of  Poedo-baptists  among  them  !     Nay,  that  the  same 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  29 

It  was  first  attempted  to  prove  that  Bap- 
tize means  exclusively  to  immerse,  from  the 
etymology  of  the  word.  Baptize  is  truly  a 
derivative    from  Bapto :   and    the   primitive 

effect  will  be  produced  when  such  a  Bible  is  given  by 
Baptist  Juinds,  aiXid  accompanied  by  Baptist  instructions! 
If  Baptists  circulate  such  a  version,  they  "  arc  thus 
made  the  unconscious  instruments  of  diffusing  the  opin- 
ions" of  the  ^'  party" — of  Paedo-baptists  ! 

I  believe  it.  It  is  even  so.  But  the  conclusion  is, 
— (and  the  objection  of  our  Baptist  brethren  unwitting- 
ly adopts  this  very  conclusion  as  its  basis,)  that  the 
word  baptize,  as  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  does 
not  mean  immerse  ;  and  will  not  be  so  understood  by 
those  who  judge  of  its  meaning  by  its  use  in  the  sacred 
writings.  I  believe,  further,  that  to  translate  the  word 
baptizo  by  the  word  immerse  throughout  the  New 
Testament,  would  in  many  cases  make  the  Bible  speak 
what  is  demonstrably  not  true.  e.  g.  I  fully  believe, 
(as  in  Acts  ix.  18,)  that  "  Paul  arose  (or  stood  up)  and 
was  baptized."  "  That  he  arose  and  was  immersed  "  I 
do  not  believe.  I  am  persuaded  it  is  utterly  untrue. 
To  transfer  the  word  baptizo  here,  and  leave  people  to 
judge  for  themselves  what  was  done,  is  certainly  to 
''  propagate  the  peculiar  sentiments"  of  Psedo-baptists. 
But  to  insinuate  that  Pae do-baptists  mean  to  "  corrupt 
the  word  of  Jehovah,"  or  "to  diffuse  the  opinions  of  a 
party,  instead  of  the  "  uncorrupted"  word  of  God,  by 
so  transferring  the  word,  is, — methinks, — too  gross  a 
calumny  to  gain  credit. 

*3 


30  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

meaning  of  Bapto  is  to  "  dip,"  or  to  "  im- 
merse." It  was  contended  that  it  always 
means  to  immerse.  This  appears  to  me  to 
be  the  turning  point  on  which  Dr.  Judson 
became  a  Baptist.  He  insisted  that  Bapto 
means  always  to  dip  or  to  immerse,  and 
that  Baptize  means  to  "  make  immersed." 
This  was  long  urged  and  most  strenuously- 
insisted  on  as  the  foundation  of  the  Baptist 
argument — that  Bapto  means  nething  hut  to 
dip  or  immerse. 

But  upon  examination  it  was  found,  that 
the  meaning  of  Bapto  had  undergone  import- 
ant changes  j  that  it  often  meant  only  to 
color^  from  an  allusion  simply  to  the  known 
effect  of  dipping,  and  not  to  the  act  of  dip- 
ping  :  and  so  it  is  often  used,  in  instances 
where  dipping  is  wholly  out  of  the  question. 
Thus  Hippocrates  says  of  a  certain  liquid, 
that  when  it  drops  upon  the  garments,  they 
are  Bapto'd ;"  or  stained.  They  are  Bapio^d, 
by  DROPPING  the  liquid  upon  them.* 

So  Homer,  speaking  of  a  battle  of  frogs 
and  mice  on  the  borders  of  the  lake,  says, 
(  cSaTTTero  aifiari  \iiivr]^  ) — "  The  lake  was  Bap- 
to'd  with  blood."     Says  President  Edward 

♦  Carson,  p.  GO. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  3l 

Beecher,*  "  On  this  there  was  once  a  battle 
royal  to  prove  1;hat  it  could  be  proper  to 
speak  of  dipping  a  lake  into  the  blood  of  a 
mouse  :  and  all  the  powers  of  rhetoric  were 
put  in  requisition  to  justify  the  usage."  f 
Indeed,  on  the  ground  then  taken  by  Dr. 
Gale  and  by  others,  it  was  necessary  to 
fight  for  this  ;  for  if  they  could  not  make  it 
out,  their  foundation  was  gone.  But  since 
Carson  showed  the  absurdity  of  the  ground, 
it  has  been  generally  abandoned.  And  yet 
while  the  ground  is  given  up  ;  the  tracts 
based  on  this  ground  are  still  in  circulation  j 
and  do  their  work  in  making  proselytes,  on 
the  strength  of  an  argument  which  well  in- 
formed Baptists  have  in  general  given  up  as 
thoroughly  exploded.  Such  a  change  in 
the  meaning  of  a  word  is  a  very  common 
occurrence,  and  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands 
that  the  derivation  of  a  word  is  no  certain 
index  to  its  meaning. 

*  Am.  Bib.  Repos.  1840,  p.  50. 

t  Carson  says,  "  What  a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhe- 
toric  is  the  figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood 
of  a  mouse  I  Yet  Dr.  Gale'  supposes  the  lake  was 
dipped  by  hyperbole.  The  literal  sense,  he  says,  is,  the 
lake  was  dipped  in  blood  !  Never  was  there  such  a 
figure."  p,  67. 


32  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Thus   the   word   "  Tint^^'^   comes  from  a 
Latin  word  (Tingo)  which  originally  meant 
to  dip  :  then  it  meant  to  color  or  "  tinge ^^^  and 
now  we  speak  of  the  "  tints'''  of  the  clouds 
or  of  the  flowers,  without  ever  thinking,  that 
the  flowers  or  the  clouds  have  been  dipped 
to  give  them  their  coloring.     So  the  word 
"  Spirit'^  comes  unsiranslated  from  the  Latin 
"  Spiritus,^'  of  which  the    original  meaning 
was  "  a  breath.^^     But  what  mortal  will  now 
contend  that  a  spirit  is  nothing  but   breath  ? 
And  yet  there  is   the    same  reason  for  com- 
plaining that  the  word  spirit  is  an  untrans- 
lated Latin  word,  that  there  is  for  complain- 
ing  that   Baptize  is    an  untranslated  Greek 
word :  and  the    reason  from   etymology   for 
making  spirit  mean  breath,  is  just  as  strong 
as   for  making  Baptize  mean  immerse  from 
its  derivation  from  Bapto.     So  the    words 
♦'  bind'"*  and  "  hands"  originally  meant  to  tie 
up,  or  manacle  with  cords  or  chains.     But 
who  thinks  now  of  putting  cords  or  fetters 
on  a  man  when  he   is  "  bound''''  to  keep  the 
peace  or  to  appear  in  court  :  or  when  he  is 
put  under  "  bonds''''  to  fulfil  the  condition  of 
a  bargain  or  agreement  ? 

The  mode  of  making  out  immersion  from 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  33 

the  derivation  of  Baptizo  having  been  over- 
thrown, and  its  very  elements  scattered  to 
the  wind,  the  learned  Carson  has  taken 
another  ground  ;  and  this  is  the  one  now 
universally  relied  on.  I  refer  to  Carson  be- 
cause his  research  has  made  this  field  his 
own  on  the  Baptist  side  of  the  question  ;  be- 
cause he  is  undoubtedly  a  very  learned  and 
able  man,*  the  chief  indeed  on  the  Baptist 
side  in  this  part  of  the  field  of  controversy  : 
because  their  writersf  are  fond  of  referring 
to  his  arguments  as  something  which  can 
never  be  overthrown  :  and  because,  indeed, 
all  the  more  recent  works,  to  which  I  have 
had  access,  are  little  else  than  Carson  over 
again.  For  these  reasons  I  shall  follow  his 
argument  ;  fully  confident  that  if  it  does 
not  stand  in  him  it  will  never  stand  in  any 
the  strength  of  any  man. 

Mr.  Carson  has,  with  immense  labor,  hunt- 
ed over  the  Greek  classics,  and  found,  as 

*  "Mr.  Carson, inferior  in  learning  and  research  to 
none  of  the  Baptists."  [Edward  Beecher,  Am.  Bib. 
Repos.  1840.  p.  51.] 

t  See  the  preface  to  Jewett  on  Baptism,  where  he 
says,  (p.  4),  "  The  spirit  exhibited  in  the  treatise  of 
Carson  is  not  to  be  commended  ;  his  reasoning,  how- 
ever, is  unanswerable.  ' 


34-  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

he  thinks,  that  the  word  Baptize  always 
means,  in  classic  Greek,  to  dip  or  immerse. 
That  this  is  its  common  meaning  in  classic 
Greek  is  certain  :  though  I  think  he  has 
failed  to  make  it  out  to  be  its  exclusive 
meaning. 

Having  settled  its  classic  meaning,  he 
then  attempts  to  make  the  New  Testament 
meaning  in  every  instance  conform  to  it. 
Here  lies  the  tug.  He  cannot  accomplish 
this,  unless  we  will  allow  him  to  take  the 
thing  to  be  proved,  for  granted.  The  New 
Testament  use  is, — as  I  think  I  shall  show, — 
most  clearly  and  indefeasibly  against  him. 

Here  lies  his  error  :  and  it  is  fundamen- 
tal. He  relies  on  the  classic  Greek  to  de- 
termine the  New  Testament  Greek  :  while 
the  facts  in  the  case  are  as  much  at  war 
with  his  conclusions,  as  the  facts  in  another 
case  would  be  with  the  conclusions  which 
should  interpret  '■^provisions'''  in  the  law  of 
Edward  III.  to  mean  victuals  :  or  with  the 
reasonings  which  would  make  our  Lord  say, 
that  men  must  be  born  of  "water  and  of 
wind;"  or  with  those  which  would  make  the 
Sadducees  deny  that  there  is  any  "  messen- 
ger''* or  "  wind.'''' 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  35 

Here  is  a  point  to  be  settled:  What  do 
Matthew  and  I\Iark,  and  Luke,  and  John,  and 
Paul,  mean  by  Baptize  1  To  settle  this  point 
Homer,  and  Pindar,  and  Xenophon  are 
brought  up  to  testify  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  word  in  t/iHr  country  and  in  their  day. 
Does  this  settle  the  question  1  Is  it  certain 
that  the  word  when  adapted  to  Jewish  ideas 
and  Jewish  rites,  meant  precisely  what  it  did 
in  the  days  of  Homer  and  Pindar  1  I  hum- 
bly conceive  it  might  be  as  well  to  call  the 
Evangelists  and  Apostles  themselves,  and 
ask  them  what  they  meant.  But,  says  the 
examiner,  Pindar,  and  Homer,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Greek  classics  have  seilled  the  question 
what  Evangelists  and  Apostles  must  mean; 
and  so, — (I  shall  show,) — he  determines  that 
they  shall  mean,  if  he  has  to  get  this  mean- 
ing out  of  them  by  torture.  But  what  is 
the  use  of  calling  up  Matthew  and  Mark, 
and  the  Apostles,  as  witnesses  at  all,  if  the 
question  is  settled  before  they  come  1 

Carson,  having  finished  his  appeal  to  the 
classics,  takes  his  position.  He  takes  his 
^^ posiiion'  before  we  are  through  with  the 
evidence,  or  even  come  to  that  part  of  the 
evidence  on  which  the  question  really  turns- 


36  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

Before  coming  to  the  New  Testament  he 
says,  (p.  79),  ^^ My  position  is^  that  it  always 
signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing  any  thing  but 
modey  He  admits  that  he  has  all  the  lexico- 
graphers against  him:*  and  I  shall  show  that 

•*  Our  Baptist  brethren  have  the  lexicographers 
against  them  on  the  question  of  the  exclusive  sense  of 
immerse,  more  thoroughly  than  many  of  them  seem 
to  be  aware  of.  All  the  lexicographers  give  other 
significations.  And  even  the  learned  Cox  is  much 
mistaken  here.  He  defies  us,  (p.  83),  "  to  point  to  a 
single  lexicon  which  does  not  give  dipping,  plunging, 
or  immersing,  as  the  unquestionably  settled,  and  uni* 
versally  primitive  meaning  of  the  word." 

The  defiance  can  be  met,  and  that  on  authority 
which  our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  quoting  as  the 
very  best — the  native  Greek.  Mr.  K.  Robinson,  (Hist. 
of  Bapt.),  quoted  in  Pengilly,  (p,  72),  says — [and  it  is 
often  fondly  repeated,]  "  The  rative  Greeks  must  un- 
derstand their  own  language  better  than  foreigners, 
and  they  have  always  understood  the  word  baptism  to 
signify  dipping  " — ''In  this  case,  the  Greeks   are  un. 

EXCEPTIONABLE  GUIDES." 

Be  it  so.  I  turn  then  to  native  Greek  lexicographers 
to  show  that  Mr.  Cox's  challenge  can  be  triumphantly 
met :  and  that  if  the  Greek  Church  ''  always  practise 
immersion,"  (which  they  do  not — see  "  The  Chronicle  of 
the  Church,"  New  Haven,  No.  167) — they  did  it  not  be- 
cause •'  native  Greeks"  considered  immersion  essential 
from  the  meaning  of  the  word  : — and  in  fine,  to  show — 
from   what  our   brethren   claim   as  *' unexceptionable 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  37 

if  the  lexicographers  make  any  account  of 
the  New  Testament  or  of  the  Christian 
fathers,  they  ought  to  be  against  him.  His 
mistake  lies  here  :  he  has  appealed  to  Pin- 
dar, and  Aristotle,  and  the  rest  of  the 
heathen  classics  ;  while  the  proper  appeal 
lies  not  to  these,  but  from  these  to  Paul,  and 
Matthew,  and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John, 
and  the  fathers   who   wrote  in  Greek.     He 

guides,"  that  to  baptize,  it  is  by  no  means  necessary 

TO    niMERSE. 

I  copy  the  following  from  the  "  Chronicle  of  the 
Church;'  (N.  Haven,  May  25,  1838,)  as  fully  establish- 
ing these  points.  "  The  oldest  native  Greek  lexico- 
grapher is  Hesychius,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century 
of  the  Christian  era.  He  gives  only  the  word  (iavru, 
[hapto'\,  and  the  only  meaning  he  gives  the  word  is 
ai/rAcw,  [antleo.']  to  draw  ox  pump  water, 

"  Next  \n  order  comes  Suidas,  a  native  Greek  who 
wrote  in  the  10th  century.  He  gives  only  the  deriva- 
tive/?a-rj^w,  [baptizo,]  and  defines  it  by  ttAv^w,  [pluno,\ 
to  wash." — *'  We  come  dov/n  to  the  present  century, 
at  the  beginning  of  which,  we  find  Gases,  a  learned 
Greek,  who  with  great  labor  and  pains  compiled  a 
large  and  valuable  lexicon  of  the  ancient  Greek  lan- 
guage. His  book,  in  two  volumes  quarto,  is  a  work 
deservedly  held  in  high  estimation  by  all,  and  is  gen- 
erally USED  BY  NATIVE  Greeks.  It  should  also  be 
remarked  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Greek  Church, 
which  always  baptizes  by  immersion,  except  in  case? 
4 


38  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

has  taken  his  stand  too  soon,  and  decided 
the  question  before  coming  to  the  most  im- 
portant testimony. 

But  having  made  his  appeal  and  taken  his 
position,  Paul  and  Mark  must  be   stretched 

of  extreme  urgency.     The  following  arc  his  definitions 
of  bapto  and  baptizo.  (Ed.  Venice,  2  vols,  4to.") 
BAHTfl  [bapto] 

— /?(5£Xw,  [brecho]  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

— Tckvvoi,  [pluno]  to  wash  [viz.  clothes.] 

— yeixi^cx),  [gemizo]  to  Jill. 

— I3v6t^w,  [bulhizo]  to  dip. 

— avrXeu)  [dinileo]  to  draw ,  to  pump  water. 
BAIITIZQ  [baptizo] 

— PpeX^  (brecho)  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

— \ovcj  [louo]  to  wash,  to  bathe. 

— avrXeoj  [anileo]  to  draw,  to  pump  water. 
♦*  These  are  the  definitions  of  a  native  Greek,  who, 
the  Baptists  tell  us,  are  "  infinitely  better  autliority  than 
European  lexicographers," — of  one  who  not  only  does 
not  gWe  dipping  or  immersion  as  the  primitive  signifi- 
cation of  baptizo,  but  who  does  not  give  it  at  all,  except 
inferentially  ;  as  in  all  these  definitions,  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion can  be  made  out  only  by  inference."  It  is  a 
clear  case,  then,  that  the  Greeks  do  not  consider  the 
word  as  meaning,  necessarily,  an  immersion.  Their 
baptizing,  in  some  cases  otherwise  than  by  immer- 
sion shows,  also,  that  they  do  not  consider  immersion 
essential  to  baptism,  either  from  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  or  from  any  other  reason. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  39 

on  this  bed  of  the  heathen  classics  :  and  I 
shall  show  how  unmercifully  they  are 
stretched  and  racked  in  the  process. 

Thus,  when  in  the  Apocryphal  book  of 
Ecclesiastic  us,  which  was  translated  into 
Greek  for  the  use  of  the  Alexandrian  Jews, 
about  170  years  before  Christ,  it  is  said, 
Eccl.  xxxiv.  30,  "He  that  washeth  himself 
because  of  a  dead  body  and  toucheth  it 
again,  what  availeth  his  washing.^'*  "  The 
word  washeth  here  is  PaTrTi^oii£vo<; — "being 
BAPTIZED."    The  allusion  is  to  Numb.  xix.  16. 

"And  whosoever  toucheth  one  that  is 
slain  with  a  sword  in  the  open  fields,  or  a 
dead  body,  &c." — "A  clean  person  shall 
take  the  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and 
sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,"  &c.  ..."  and  upon 
him  that  toucheth  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  a 
grave."  The  conclusion  should  be,  I  think, 
inevitably,  that  the  baptizing  here  was  done 
by  sprinklings  and  that  here  is  a  clear  in- 
stance   in    the    Alexandrine     Greek — (the 

*  While  the  word  "  washeth,"  here  is  ffa-Ti^ifievos 
[baptized ;]  the  word  ''  washing"  is  Xouracj,  *^ wash- 
ing, showing  conclusively  that  the  writer  held  the  two 
words  PaTTTt^o)  [baptizo]  and  Xoww  [louo" — to  wash]  as 
SYNONYMOUS.  Of  coursc  dipping,  or  immersing,  is  not 
essential  to  baptizin£j. 


40  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

sort  in  common  use  among  the  Jews,) — 
where  the  word  baptize  is  used  to  denote  a 
purification  by  sprinklings  with  no  reference 
to  dipping  or  immersing  at  all. 

But  Carson  says,  No.  "  When  I  have  prov- 
ed the  meaning  of  a  word  by  the  authority 
of  the  whole  consent  of  Greek  literature, 
I  will  not  surrender  it  to  the  supposition  ofi 
the  strict  adherence  of  the  Jewish  nation^  in 
the  time  of  writing  the  Apocrypha  to 
the  Mosaic  ritual:'''  (p.  99.) 

The  question  then  comes  to  this  dilemma  : 
either  the  Jews  had  abandoned  this  mode  of 
purifying  from  a  dead  body,  as  specifically 
and  minutely  pointed  out  by  God — or,  here 

was     A     BAPTISM     BY     SPRINKLING.       CarsOU    is 

driven  here  to  assume,  and  that  without  the 
least  shadow  or  pretence  of  authority,  that 
when  God  had  commanded  a  purification  by 
sprinklings  the  Jewish  nation  had  turned 
about  and  made  an  immersion  of  it.  If  we 
do  not  allow  this  assumption  to  pass  with  no 
proof,  and   receive  it  as  an  established  cer- 

*  It  should  be  observed  that  my  business  at  this 
Btage  of  the  discussion,  is  not  to  follow  out  all  his 
arguments  in  detail,  but  to  point  out  his  false  princi- 
ples of  reasoning. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  41 

iainty^  then  Carson's  "  position"  has  been 
overthrown,  and  here  is  a  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling. 

But  difficulties  multiply  upon  him  as  he 
proceeds.  Thus,  in  Mark  vii.  4 :  "  And 
when  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  wash^  they  eat  not."  The  original  is, 
"  Except  they  are  baptized^  they  eat  not  j" 
which,  I  shall  show  hereafter,  is,  Except 
they  "  wash  their  hands^"*  i,  e,  perform  a 
ceremonial  purification  upon  them,  they  eat 
not. 

The  learned  Campbell,  who  wished  very 
much  to  establish  immersion  as  the  proper 
meaning    of  baptism,*  could  see  no    other 

*  "  Nothing,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  <'  but  the  celebrity 
of  Dr.  Campbell  and  the  satisfaction  of  obtaining  a 
concession  from  a  man  supposed  to  be  an  opponent, 
can  account  for  the  eulogies  pronounced  on  his  Notes 
on  Matt.  iii.  11,  and  Mark,  vii.  3,  4.  After  all,  what 
has  he  done  in  them  towards  ascertaining  the  me^.Ti. 
ing  oi  baptizo  ?  Has  he  illustrated  its  various  accep- 
tations ?  Has  he  given  any  induction  of  examples, 
scriptural  or  classical,  for  the  translation  he  has  pre- 
ferred ? — He  has  done  nothing  of  this  kind,  on  this 
subject,  in  any  one  passage  in  all  his  works.  What 
then  has  he  done  ?  He  has  appealed  to  one  of  the 
worst  authorities  among  the  Fathers  of  ecclesiastical 
♦4 


42  3I0DE  OF  BAPTISM. 

mode  of  getting  along  here  than  by  suppos- 
ing that  the  hands  were  dipped,  and  so  the 
immersion,  (or  baptism,)  predicated  of  the 
hands.  He  knew  very  well  that  no  history 
of  Jewish  customs  could  furnish  a  scrap  of 
evidence  to  show  that  whenever  Jews  had 
been  in  the  market,  they  always  immersed 
their  whole  bodies.  But  unfortunately  for 
him  the  original  language  is  so  definite  as 
to  show  conclusively  that  the  baptism  here 
spoken  of  is  the  baptism  of  the  persons  : 
" Except  Mey,  (the  persons),  are  baptized:" 
not  "  Except  their  hands  are  baptized." 
Carson  reproves  this  fault  of  Campbell, 
(p.  101,)  and  says,  that  Dr.  Campbell's  no- 
tion that  this  baptism  refers  to  the  hands  as 
a  washing  by  "  dipping  them^'  he  "  does  not 
approve."  He  very  properly  calls  it  "  j^n 
ingenious  conceit^  without  any  authority  from 
ihepracticeof  the  language."  But  how  does 
Carson  himself  dispose  of  the  difficulty  1  In 
avery  summary  way,  indeed.  He  has  shown 
the  meaning  of  baptizo  from  the  heathen  clas- 

antiquity,  and  to  one  of  the  worst  authorities  among 
commentators  since  the  revival  of  letters  ;  and  to  these 
he  has  added  the  account  of  his  own  assertion." 
Ewing  on  Baptism,  p.  108. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  43 

sics  :  and  he  proves  the  universal  custom 
of  the  Jews,  always  to  immerse  themselves, 
from  the  meaning  of  the  word  !  I  beg  his 
pardon  :  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  the 
very  thing  that  is  in  question  here.  We 
cannot  allow  him  to  prove  a  matter  in  ques- 
tion by  first  assuming  it  as  true.  What  is 
the  historical  fact  as  to  what  the  Jews  did 
before  eating  whenever  they  came  from  the 
market '?  Settle  this  and  you  settle  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize  in  this  connection. 
But  no,  Carson  is  determined  that  the  his- 
torical fact  shall  be  settled  by  the  meaning 
of  the  w^ord,  and  the  thing  in  dispute  shall 
be  proved  by  itself;  no  matter  though  all 
history  is  against  it.  He  has  proved  the 
meaning  of  the  word  from  the  heathen  clas- 
sics ;  and  no  matter  for  any  difficulties  in 
the  w^ay  ;  the  Evangelists  shall  mean  im- 
mersion by  it.  No  matter  though  it  is 
proved  that  the  Jews  purified  themselves 
by  pouring  water  on  the  hands  ;  and  that 
"  The  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews," 
was  from  "  water  pots,  holding  about  three 
firkins"  (at  the  largest  computation  about 
two-thirds  of  a  barrel,)  "  a-piece,"  from 
which  water   might  be  poured, — or  run  on 


4f4  MODE  Of  BAPTISM. 

the  hands  ;  but  in  which  no  man  could  be 
immersed.  "  /  care  not^''  says  he,  "  that  ten 
thousand  such  examples  were  brought  for- 
ward ;"  he  insists  that  the  word  baptize 
shall  here  mean  to  dip^  viz.  to  dip  the  whole 
body  ;  because  Greek  literature  so  uses  the 
word  baptize,  (p.  99.)  No  matter  how  im- 
probable it  may  be  that  the  Jews,  always 
immersed  their  whole  bodies  as  often  as  they 
came  from  the  market  ;  no  matter  though  no 
record  or  trace  of  such  a  custom  is  found 
anywhere  in  the  world,  unless  it  be  in  this 
assumed  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  ; — no 
matter  though  no  such  custom  has  been 
heard  of  the  Jews,  wherever  they  have  been 
dispersed  throughout  the  world  for  so  many 
ages  to  this  day ; — no  matter  that  though 
the  purifying  is  still  kept,  it  is  still  perform- 
ed by  pouring  water  on  the  hands  ;  or  hold- 
ing them  in  a  stream  of  water  running  from 
a  vessel  : — Carson  maintains  still  and  stout- 
ly that,  "  We  have  here  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  fur  the  Jewish  custom.^'  "  If," 
says  he,  "  I  have  established  the  acceptation 
of  this  word  by  the  consent  of  use,  even  an 
inexplicable  difficulty  in  this  case,  would  not 
affect  the    certainty  of    my    conclusion." 


MODE  OF   BAPTISM.  45 

(p.  100.)  I  humbly  beg  leave  to  differ  from 
him;  and  you  may  judge  whether  I  have 
alleged  sufficient  reason.  The  Holy  Spirit 
has  indeed  said  that  the  Jews  were  baptized 
as  often  as  they  came  from  the  market  ; 
but  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not  said  that  the 
word  baptize  here  means  to  immerse.  The 
meaning  is  the  thing  in  question.  And, 
it  seems  to  me,  that  a  reference  to  the  plain 
facts  in  the  case  authorizes  us  to  consider 
rather  this,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  regarded 
that  as  a  baptism  of  the  person^  which  was 
performed  by  pouring  water  07i  the  hands  ; 
as  I  shall  show  more  particularly  hereafter. 
I  am  not  now  to  follow  arguments  in  partic- 
ular, farther  than  to  point  out  the  fallacy  in 
the  principle  of  arguing.  If  Carson  has 
failed  here,  he  is  overthrown,  and  entirely  so. 
1  do  think  that  he  is  shown  to  have  reasoned 
from  false  principles,  and  to  have  failed. 
And  I  know  of  few  among  the  more  intelli- 
gent Baptists,  who  will  not  be  ready  to  ad- 
mit, that  if  the  very  basis  of  Carson's  argu- 
ment be  overthrown,  the  whole  fabric  of 
their  peculiar  system  is  broken  up  and  falls 
to  the  ground. 

Carson  argues  in  the  same  manner  with 


46  31  ODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

regard  to  baptism  of  the  tables  (couches)  in 
Mark,  vii.  4.  He  says,  (p.  114,)  "But  with 
respect  to  Mark,  vii.  4,  though  it  were  prov- 
ed that  the  couches  could  not  be  immersed,  I 
would  not  yield  an  inch  of  the  ground  I 
have  occupied."  Now  how  shall  we  argue 
with  a  man  who  will  not  admit  an  absolute 
impossibility  to  be  any  obstacle  in  the  way 
of  his  theory;  the  couches  were  baptized, 
and  if  it  "  be  proved*^  that "  the  couches  could  not 
be  immersed"  he  will  not  yield  an  inch  ;  he 
will  maintain  still  that  they  were  immersed, 
"  And!  may  add,"  says  he,  (p.  116,)  "  that 
the  couches  might  have  been  so  construct- 
ed, that  they  might  be  conveniently  taken 
to  pieces."  Indeed  !  what  shall  we  not  allow 
him  to  suppose  ^'' viight  have  been,"  rather 
than  grant  the  possibility  that  the  Jews 
"  might'^  have  used  this  word  baptize  in  a 
sense  different  from  that  of  the  old  heathen 
Greeks  % 

Nor  would  it  seem  to  make  any  matter  to 
Mr.  Carson,  how  often  people  had  been 
"  baptized"  in  other  modes  than  immersion  j 
he  would  still  maintain  his  ground.  "  I  care 
not,"  says  he, — "  I  care  not  if  there  never 
had  been  a  human  being  immersed  in  water 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  47 

since  the  creation  of  the  world,  if  the  word 
denotes  immersion,  and  if  Christ  enjoins  it, 
I  will  contend  for  it  as  confidently  as  if  all 
nations  had  been  daily  in  the  practice  of  bapti- 
zing"— (immersing)  "  each  other,"  (p.  155.) 
True,  IF  the  word  means  immerse  and  never 
means  anything  else.  But  I  humbly  sup- 
pose that  the  common  practice  of  a  people 
who  called  a  purifying  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring,  a  baptism,  would  have  some  little 
weight  upon  the  question  what  that  people 
did  in  fact  understand  by  the  words  baptize 
and  baptism. 

So  when  Carson  comes  to  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  ;  it  is  nothing  to  him  that 
the  Scriptures  represent  this  uniform- 
ly under  the  mode  of  "  pouring,"  "  coming 
down  like  rain,"  "  and  shedding  forth."  He 
says,  "  It  is  a  fixed  point,  that  baptism  means 
immersion ;"  "  and  in  the  examination  of  the 
reference  in  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  no- 
thing CAN  BE  ADMITTED  inconsistent  with 
this  ;"  and  then  adds,  (p.  164),  "  The  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  must  have  a  reference  to 
immersion,  because — baptism  is  immersion  /" 
I  would  reply,  That,  Mr.  Carson,  is  the  very 
thing  to  be  proved  ;  whether  baptism  is  ex- 


48  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

clusively — immersion.  But  he  insists  upon 
it  directly  in  the  same  page,  and  puts  his 
words  in  italics ;  "  Pouring  cannot  be  the 
figurative  baptism,  because  baptism  never  lite- 
rail?/  denotes  pouring.^' — "  Pouring  could  not 
represent  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  because 
the  Spirit  is  not  literally  poured." 

1  would  reply, — But,  Mr.  Carson,  does  not 
God  himself  say,  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  1" 
But,  replies  he,  "  Believers  are  said  to  be  im- 
mersed into  the  Spirit,  not  because  there  is 
any  thing  like  immersion  in  the  manner  of 
the  reception  of  the  Spirit,  but  from  the  re- 
semblance between  an  object  soaked  in  a 
fluid,  and  the  sanctification  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  body  and  faculties  of  the  soul." 
(pp.  167,  168.) 

I  say  nothing  about  the  resemblance  be- 
tween "  soaking^''  and  "  sanctifying  ;"  but 
he  says  truly,  there  is  ''nothing  like  immer- 
sion^'''' in  the  manner  of  receiving  the  Spirit  ; 
nor,  of  course,  is  there  in  the  manner  of  con- 
ferring it  ;  yet  a  baptism  there  is,  Christ 
being  witness  ;  and  the  mode  of  that  baptism 
is  represented  by  a  ''^pouring  out^''''  "  shed- 
ding forth^''^  "  coming  down^''^  '"'  falling  upon" 

But    immediately  Mr.  Carson    responds, 


I 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  49 

(p.   168),  "  There  was  a  real  baptism  (im- 
mersion), in  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit." 

I  answer,  Christ  did  not  say,  ye  shall  be 
'-''immersed''''  into  the  "  emblems'''  of  the  Spirit ; 
he  said  "  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  with  the  Spirit  itself,  not  with  its 
'•  emblems.''^ 

I  would  follow  Mr.  Carson  farther  here, 
did  I  deem  it  necessary.  But  I  think  1  have 
gone  far  enough  to  show  that  he  has  failed, 
most  signally  failed,  in  that  which  is  the 
very  foundation  and  element  of  his  argument. 
He  will  prove  every  thing  if  we  will  let  him 
assume  every  thing.  But  we  cannot.  His 
principles  of  reasoning  are  unsound  ;  and  if 
you  allow  him  these  unsound  principles,  he 
still  begs  the  question.  You  have  seen  how 
the  Evangelists  are  put  to  the  torture  when 
they  are  stretched  on  this  Procrustean  bed 
of  the  heathen  Greeks.  Even  granting  that 
Carson  has  rightly  settled  the  question  with 
regard  to  the  heathen  Greeks,  I  think  I 
have  shown  his  argument  to  be  as  incon- 
clusive as  that  which  should  make  the  word 
"  Provisions"  in  the  statute  of  Edward  III. 
mean  victuals ;  or  as  that  which  would 
make  regeneration  consist  in  being  born  of 
5 


50  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  water  and  of  wind ;"  or  as  that  which 
would  make  the  peculiar  infidelity  of  the 
Sadducees  consist  in  denying  that  there  is 
any  "  rising  wp^''  or  "  messenger^''  or  "  icind^'' 

I  might  rest  the  debate  here.  But  I  think 
Carson  has  even  failed  to  make  out  his  case 
from  the  Greek  classics.  He  is  to  prove 
that  baptism  in  these  always  means  immer- 
sion ;  and  such  an  immersion  as  to  have  the 
whole  body  covered  with  water.  But  take 
two  or  three  of  his  examples  j  take  them  in 
course  and  almost  at  random  on  pp.  83,  84, 
of  his  work. 

"  Polyhius  applies  the  word  to  soldiers 
passing  through  water,  baptized  up  to  the 
middle."  Here  surely,  they  were  ivet  with 
the  water  ;  but,  it  seems  to  me,  not  "  im- 
mersed''' in  it ;  not  "  buriecV  in  the  waters, 
according  to  the  favorite  figure  of  our  Bap- 
tist  brethren. 

Take  his  next  example.  "  Plutarch^ 
speaking  of  a  Roman  General  dying  of  his 
wounds,  says  that  (^a-rtaas)  having  baptized 
his  hand  in  blood,  he  wrote  the  inscription 
for  a  trophy."  "  Here,"  says  Carson,  "  the 
mode  cannot  be  questioned."  "  The  instru- 
ment of  writing  is  dipped  in  the   coloring 


MODE  OF  BAI'TISM.  5  1 

fluid."  Suppose  we  grant  it.  ^ly  pen  is  the 
instrument  of  writing,  and  I  dip  it  in  the  ink 
when  I  write  j  surely  I  never  immerse  it  in 
ink  when  I  write  !  When  will  our  Baptist 
brethren  cease  this  play  upon  the  word  dip- 
ping when  they  are  to  prove  a  total  immer- 
sion ! 

Again,  says  Carson,  (p.  84),  "  The  sinner 
is  represented  by  Porphyry  as  baptized  up 
to  his  head  in  Styx,  a  celebrated  river  in 
heliy  and  adds,  "  Is  there  any  question  about 
the  mode  of  this  baptism  ?"  I  reply,  No, 
surely  there  is  not.  He  is  not  immersed^ 
he  is  not  buried  in  the  water. 

Again,  he  says,  (p.  83,)  "  Strabo  applies 
the  word  to  Alexander's  soldiers  marching 
a  whole  day  through  the  tide  between  the 
mountain  Climax  and  the  sea,  baptized  up 
to  the  middle.  Surely,"  says  Carson,  "this 
was  immersion."  If  it  was,  I  reply,  then 
when  our  Baptist  ministers  icade  out  into  the 
river  with  their  candidates,  then  both  the 
minister  and  the  candidate  are  immersed 
without  being  put  under  water  at  all  ;  and 
a  burijing  in  the  water  is  not  necessary  to 
baptism.  Certainly,  the  classic  Strabo  being 
witness,    there    may   be  a  baptism  without 


52  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

putting  the  body  under  water.  Here  is 
not  even  di dippings  ov2i  plunging^  or  an  over- 
whelming^ or  a  burying  ;  the  soldiers  wade 
into  the  water  and  so  are  baptized  !  And 
yet,  upon  such  a  basis,  Carson  settles  the 
question,  that  baptism  necessarily  implies 
putting  the  subject  wholly  under  water  ! 
for  no  less  a  conclusion  than  this  meets  the 
point  which  he  is  to  establish.  His  ancient 
classics  fail  him  ;  and  we  have  seen  that  if 
they  did  not,  their  entire  agreement,  in  using 
the  word  to  denote  only  an  immersion, 
would  by  no  means  settle  the  question. 
We  must  go  to  the  New  Testament.  We 
must  learn  the  sacred  use  of  the  term.  We 
must  learn  what  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
deemed  essential  to  baptism  ;  and  if  we 
make  any  thing  essential  which  they  did 
not,  we  are  found  guilty  of  adding  to  the 
word  of  God. 


n. 


THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

SPRINKLING  AND  POURING,  SCRIPTURAL  MODES. 


MATTHEW,  xxviii.l9. 
Go   ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


So  far,  we  have  been  occupied  in  discuss- 
ing the  principles  of  interpretation  to  be 
applied  or  admitted  in  determining  what  it 
is  to  baptize  ;  and  in  making  an  application 
of  these  principles  to  the  mode  of  argumen- 
tation adopted  by  our  Baptist  brethren. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  three  inquiries  laid 
do^vn  as  the  plan  of  my  argument  in  the 
preceding  discourse. 

1.  What  would  the  immediate  disciples  of 
our  Lord  understand  from  the  simple  face  of 
the  command  "  Baptize  V 


54?  MODE  OF  BAPTISM, 

2.  Is  THERE  SATISFACTORY  EVIDENCE  THAT 
THEY  ALWAYS  ADMINISTERED  THE  ORDINANCE 
BY  IMMERSION  % 

3.  On  THE  SUPPOSITION  THAT  THEY  DID  SO, 
IS  THERE  EVIDENCE  THAT  THEY  CONSIDERED 
THAT  ONE  MODE  ESSENTIAL  1 

1.  What  would  the  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ  understand  from  the  simple  face  of  the 
command  "■  Baptize  ?" 

In  Heb.  ix.  10,  we  read  of  a  ritual  service 
"  which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and 
divers   washings."      In   the    original,    it    is 

^Siaipopois  pa-rrriaixois^'^   "  DiVERS  BAPTISMS." 

So,  according  to  Paul,  there  were  '"'' bap- 
tisms''^ under  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion ;  and  they  are  alike  wrong,  who  say 
that  there   was    no   baptism  before  John,* 

*  We  are  often  quoted  as  though  we  held  that  John's 
baptism  was  "/?-om  men  ;"  and  long  arguments  full  of 
emotion  at  such  a  flagrant  contradiction  of  our  Savior 
are  held,  to  prove  that  John's  baptism  was  not  from 
men.  We  never  doubted,  that  John's  baptism 
was  not  from  men.  And  yet  the  word  baptize, 
and  the  thing  baptize,  so  far  as  the  outward  act  is 
concerned,  were  in  common  use  long  before  John  ;  as 
Paul  here  witnesses.  The  authority  for  baptizing  with 
the  "  baptism  unto  repentance,''^  John  had  from  heaven  ; 
the  design  and  import  of  that  baptism  were  from  hea- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  55 

and  they  who  cut  the  Bible  in  two,  and 
throw  away  the  Old  Testament,  when  they 
go  to  learn  what  the  word  baptism  means. 

Paul  contrasts  this  dispensation  with  that 
of  which  Christ  is  High  Priest.  He  has 
told  in  what  the  first  dispensation  stood,  and 
he  goes  on  to  say  in  what  the  new  dispen- 
sation does  not  stand.  "Neither  by  the 
blood  of  goats  and   calves,  but  by  his  own 

bloody "  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 

goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling 
the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of 
the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ purge  your  conscience.'^  He  spe- 
cifies here  what  "  washings'^  (baptisms,)  or 
purifyings,  he  speaks  of ;  and  the  only  ones 
which  he  specifies,  are  those  performed  with 
"  6/ooc?,"  and  with  the  "  ashes  of  a  heifer 
SFRiisKLiNG  the  unclean."  The  persons  and 
things  purified  were  never  immersed  in  blood, 

yen,  neic  and  specially  given  to  John.  But  the  act  was 
not  then  first  practiced.  A  neio  use  was  made  of  an 
old  thing.  The  design,  and  import,  and  use,  were  the 
substance  of  the  baptism  ;  the  mode  was  a  trifle.  The 
mind  of  our  Savior,  as  well  as  the  minds  of  his  hearers, 
fastened  upon  these, — the  design,  meaning,  and  use  of 
the  baptism, — when  he  asked,  "  The  baptism  of  John, 
was  it  from  Heaven,  or  of  men  ?" 


56  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

they  were  sprinkled  ;  and  these  sprinklings 
Paul  here  calls  baptisms.  It  should  be  no- 
ticed too  that  as  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  bulls,  and  of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sancti- 
fied to  the  purifying  of  the^esA,"  so  the  ap- 
plication of  the  "  blood  of  Christ ^^^  which 
purgeth  "  the  conscience"  is  repeatedly 
called  the  "  sprinkling"  (never  the  immers. 
ing)  "  of  the  blood  of  Christ.'^ 

The  "  PURIFYING  OF  THE  flesh"  by  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer,  to  which  Paul  here  refers, 
is  prescribed  in  Numbers  xix.  17,  18. 
*'  And  for  an  unclean  person,  they  shall  take 
of  the  ashes  of  a  burnt  heifer  o(  purification 
for  sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put 
thereto  in  a  vessel,  and  a  clean  person  shall 
SPRINKLE  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all  the 
vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were 
there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a  bone,  or 
one  slain,  or  one  dead,  or  a  grave." 

It  is  added,  that  on  the  seventh  day  "  he 
shall  bathe  himself ;"  and  our  Baptist  bre- 
thren are  fond  of  saying  that  the  "  Baptism 
refers  to  the  bathing."  I  am  glad  of  the 
objection,  because  it  distinctly  recognizes 
the  fact  that  Paul  refers  to  these  purifyings 
as  among  his  "  divers  baptisms."     But  the 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  57 

objection  is  idle  ;  as  Paul  does  not  specify 
the  bathing  as  any  part  of  what  he  means  ; 
but  he  does  specify  the  "  sprinkli7ig."     He 
does  not  say  that  the  bathing*  "  sanctifieth 
to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,"  but  he  says  it 
is  "  The   blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  the  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
that  sanctifieth."     It  is  what  is  done  by  ano- 
ther hand,  (for  a  "  clean  person^'  must  sprin- 
kle the  unclean,)  on  which  Paul's  mind  fas- 
tens as  the  baptism  ;  and  he  does  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  specify  any  thing  else.    And 
this  application  of  blood,  which  was  made 
by  sprinkling,   and  the   ashes  of   a  heifer 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  Paul  calls  a  baptism. 
The  current  of  his  discourse  leads  him  on 
to   speak    of   another  of  the    "  divers  bap- 
tisms," in  V.  15,  and  onward.     Having  made 
a  comparison  between   the   ^^  purifying  oj 
theflesh,^'  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  and  of 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  and  the  ^^  purging  of 
the  conscience,^'  by  the   "  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Christ,"  he  runs  out  the  same  pa- 
rallel between  the  ritual  of  establishing  the 

*  If  he  did,  the  word  bathing  would  not  necessarily 
imply  an  immersion.  Bathing  here  is  synonymous 
with  leashing. 


58  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

first  testament  under  Moses,  and  the  ritual 
of  establisliing  the  second  under  Christ.  It 
is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  same  form  of 
ritual  is  still  kept  up ;  it  is  still  a  sprinkling, 
and  not  an  immersion.  "  For  when  Moses 
had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  the  people, 
according  to  the  law,  he  took  of  the  blood 
of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scar- 
let wool,  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  the  book 
and  all  the  people.  Moreover,  he  sprinkled 
likewise  with  blood  both  the  tabernacle  and 
all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry."  The  argu- 
ment is,  that  Christ,  in  ratifying  the  new 
covenant,  must  ratify  it  with  his  own  blood ; 
and  the  only  modal  application  of  this  blood 
spoken  of  even  in  figure,  is  the  "  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Christ."  The  current  of 
his  discourse,  and  the  contrast  which  runs 
throughout  his  argument,  shows  that  the 
*'  divers  baptisms'*^  are  still  referred  to  in 
these  purifyings  so  repeatedly  described 
under  the  mode  of  sprinkling. 

He  speaks  of  "  divers  baptisms."  Ano- 
ther of  these  is  mentioned  in  Numb.  viii.  7: 
"  And  this  shall  thou  do  unto  them  to 
cleanse  them,"  (viz.  the  Levites,  to  prepare 
them  to  enter  upon  the  functions  of  their 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  59 

office,)  "  sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon 
them,  and  let  them  shave  all  their  flesh,  and 
let  them  wash  their  clothes,  and  so  make 
themselves  clean."  Note  here,  that  no  man 
inducts  himself  into  the  priesthood,  and  all 
that  was  done  to  the  Levite  by  another'' s  hand 
Avas  the  sprinkling.^^  The  Leper  was  in  like 
manner  to  be  cleansed  by  sprinkling,  Lev. 
xiv.  7.  And  so  pre-eminently  is  the  sprink- 
ling  considered  as  the  important  element  in 
the  cleansing,  that  this  alone  is  the  outward 
part  of  the  ritual  pitched  upon  to  designate 
the  purifying  with  which  Christ  washes 
away  the  sins,  and  cleanses  away  the  pol- 
lution of  the  soul.  Thus,  Isaiah  Hi.  15,  "  So 
shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations."  Heb.  xii. 
24,  "  And  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ." 
L  Pet.  i.  2,  "  And  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ."  You  never  read  of  his  "  Immersing 
many  nations,"  nor  of  the  "  Immersion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  j"  no  never,  in  the 
word  of  God. 

But  the  IMPORT  of  baptism  by  water  is  this 
same  cleansing  away  of  sin  by  the  blood  of 
Christ.  The  washing  away  of  sin  is  effected 
— not  by  the  water — but  by  the  blood  of 
Christ.  Baptism  by  water  signifies  this 
washing  away  of  sins-     Thus,  "  Arise  and 


60  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins.^^*  Now 
if  the  application  of  the  sig?i  is  to  resemble 
the  application  of  the  thing  which  performs 
the  real  cleansing,  and  to  resemble  it  even 
in  figure  :  if  the  type  is  to  resemble  the  a/iti- 
type  ;  the  shadow  the  substance ;  then  as  it  is 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ  that  does 
the  cleansing,  surely  it  should  be  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  water  in  baptism  that  signifies 
the  cleansing  ;  immersion  would  spoil  the 
resemblance,  and  mar  the  significance  of 
the  sign. 

But  not  to  come  at  the  conclusion  too 
soon,  let  US  hold  here  upon  the  testimony 
of  the  facts  so  far  considered.  We  have 
here,  then,  "  divers   baptisms"  performed  by 

SPRINKLING. 

Turn  now  to  Mark  vii.  3,  4 — "  For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash 
their  hands  oft,  eat  not ;  holding  the  tradi- 
tion of  the   elders.     And  when  they  come 

*  There  is  a  curious  mode  of  setting  asido  this  argu- 
ment, by  considering  baptism  as  designed  to  represent 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ !  The  word  of 
God  gives  quite  another  view  of  the  import  of  baptism  ; 
see  Acts  ii.  38,  and  xxii.  IG. 


HODE  OF  BAPTISM.  61 

from  the  market,*  except  they  wash,  they 
eat  not  j  and  many  other  things  there  be 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
WASHING  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen  ves- 
sels,  and  tables." 

The  words  "  wash"  and  "  loashing''^  are, 
in  the  original  (/Ja-rftrwirai,)  except  they  have 

BAPTIZED  THEMSELVES  ;  and  (^a-ncfiovs,"^  ''  BAP- 
TISMS." 

See  how  this  subject  is  introduced. 
"  And  when  they  saw  some  of  his  disciples 
eat  bread  with  defiled  (that  is  to  say,  with 
umcashen)  hands,  they  found  fault."  Then 
follows  the  explanation :  "  For  the  Pharisees, 
and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not ;  and  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not." 
"  Then  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  asked  him, 
Why  walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to 
the  tradition  of  the   elders,!  but   eat  bread 

*  Rosenmuller  says,  "  The  sense  is,  '  when  they  come 
from  the  market,  (i.  e.  any  public  place,)  they  do  not 
take  their  food  except  they  wash  tlieir  liauds.'  Ayopa 
(the  market)  signifies  not  only  a  concourse  of  men,  or 
place  of  public  resort,  in  which  provisions  arc  sold,  and 
in  which  trials  arc  held,  but  all  similar  public  places." 
Ayopa — public  places,  opposed  to  private  dwellings." 

+  *'  The  rule  of  the  rabbins  was,  that  if  thev  washed 
6 


♦)2  MODE  OF    BAPTISM. 

with  unwashcn  hands  ?"  Compare  this  with 
Lulce  xi.  38.  A  Pharisee  marvelled  that 
llie  Lord  Jesus  "  had  not  first  washed  before 
dinner,"  (original,  eSa^mci),,)  ;  that  "  he  had 
not  first  been  baptized  before  dinner."  The 
fault  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  of  the  disciples, 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  was,  that  they  had 
not  first  been  baptized  (or  baptized  tkcmsclves) 
before  eating  ;  i.  e.,  they  had  eaten  with  un. 
wAsiiEN  HANDS.  The  washing  of  the  hands, 
therefore,  was  a  baptism  ;  and, — as  the  form 
of  the  original  language,  as  well  as  our 
translation,  shows, — a  baptism  of  the  persons, 
not  simply  of  the  hands ;  ?.  e.,  they  (the 
persons)  were  baptized  when  their  hands 
had  been  washed  for  a  ceremonial  purify- 
ing. 

There  is  this  further  peculiarity  about  it  ; 
their  hands  were  not  commonly  dipped  or 
immersed^  but  washed  in  running  water,  as 

tlicir  hands  well  in  tiic  iuorniii<]f,  the  first  thing  tlicy 
did,  it  would  servo  for  all  day,  procidcd  thcij  kept  alone  ; 
but  ifthty  went  iiilo  company,  they  must  not,  at  their  re- 
turn, cither  cat  or  pray,  till  they  had  washed  their 
hands." — Matthew  Henry ,  on  Mark  vii.  4. 

See  also  Maiinonules,  cited  in  Scott's  comment  on 
this  place,  to  the  same  effect. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  63 

streaming  from  a  pitcher  or  from  a  watering 
pot.* 

1  am  aware  that  attempts  have  been  made 
to  set  aside  the  force  of  these  passages,  in 
Mark  vii.  and  Luke  xi.  But  these  attempts 
have  done  no  more  than  to  demonstrate  the 
strength  of  our  position.  There  arc  only- 
two  possible  grounds  of  resisting  the  con- 
clusion. One  of  which  is,  that  the  baptism 
is  predicated  of  the  hands,  as  though  the 
hands  were  immersed  ;  and  the  other,  that 
while  the  Jews  on  many  occasions  washed 
their  hands^  yet  as  often  as  they  came  from 
ike  market^  they  immersed  their  whole  bodies. 

*  A  very  worthy  minister  of  the  Episcopal  church, 
who  had  traveled  much,  and  tpent  considerable  time 
in  the  East,  (formerly  Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church  in 
this  place,)  assured  me  that  the  practice  is  continued 
in  the  Eastern  world  to  this  day.  Before  meals,  a  ser- 
vant comes  round  with  a  pitcher,  and  pours  water  on 
the  hands  of  those  about  to  eat,  or  they  are  otherwise 
cleansed  with  running  or  streaming  water.  He  said, 
as  often  as  he  saw  it  done,  it  brought  to  his  mind  the 
passage  in  II.  Kings  iii.  11.  "  Here  is  Elisha,  the  son 
of  Shaphat,  who  poured  icater  on  the  hands  of  Elijah," 
i.  e.  wlxo  was  servant  to  him  :  the  very  common  duty 
of  a  servant  is  used  as  an  appellation  to  designate 
the  relation  of  servant. 


64  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

As  was  noticed  in  the  previous  discourse, 
Dr.  Campbell  takes  the  first  ground,  and  Mr. 
Carson,  the  second  ;  and  while  these  two 
great  men  measure  swords,  and  mutually 
overthrow  each  other's  position,  the  truth 
comes  out  from  between  them  unscathed. 
Campbell,  appearing  to  know  full  well  the 
absurdity  of  supposing  that  "  all  the  Jews''' 
always  "  immersed"  themselves  as  often  as 
they  came  from  the  market  before  eating, 
referred  the  baptism  to  the  hands^  and  main- 
tained an  immersion^  but  an  immersion  of 
the  hands  only.  Carson,  (p.  101,)  replies, 
that  he  considers  Campbell's  view  of  the 
matter  as  ''nothing  but  an  ingenious  device, 
without  any  authority  from  the  practice  of 
the  language."  Such  it  most  undoubtedly 
is.  No  scholar  could  ever  have  been  be- 
trayed into  such  a  "  device,"  save  from  the 
hard  necessity  of  making  out  an  "  immersion'^ 
in  this  case,  by  some  means  or  other.  Car. 
son,  on  the  other  hand,  maintains  that  we 
are  taught  here,  that  "  all  the  Jews,"  when- 
ever they  have  been  at  the  market,  never 
eat  except  they  have  immersed  the  whole  body. 
What  does  he  bring  to  prove  it  1  The 
word    baptize  !      Baptize    means   immerse  : 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  65 

therefore  they  were  immersed,  the  Holy- 
Spirit  being  witness !  But  the  very  ques- 
tion is,  whether  baptize  means  immerse. 
The  Holy  Spirit  has  said  they  were  baptized^ 
and  has  so  explained  it  as  to  leave  us  to  un- 
derstand that  they  were  baptized  (ceremo- 
nially purified,)  by  washing  their  hands. 
The  Holy  Spirit  has  said  that  they  were 
baptized,  but  the  Spirit  has  not  told  us  that 
by  baptize^  he  means  immerse.  What  was 
the  fad  ?  Did  the  Jews  always  immerse 
themselves  as  often  as  they  came  from  the 
market?*  To  me  it  appears  clear  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  explained  what  the  fact  was ; 
they  washed  their  hands.  And  what  does 
Mr.  Carson  bring  to  show  that  they  always 
immersed  their  whole  bodies  as  often  as 
they  came  from  the  market  1  Nothing  but 
this  idle  begging  of  the  question  concerning 
the  word  baptize.  There  is  not  a  scrap  of 
evidence  in  any  thing  else  in  the  wide  world 
to  show  it.f     The  manners  and  customs  of 

♦  Kuinoel  declares  it  to  be  improbable,  and  maintains 
that  it  cannot  be  proved  by  sufficient  arguments  that 
they  had  such  a  custom. 

t  ''  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Jews  washed  their 
whole  bodies  every  time  they  came  from  the  market." 
— Barnes,  6* 


66  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  Jews  were  well  known.  They  have 
been  well  known  since  throughout  the  four 
quarters  of  the  globe,  wherever  their  nation 
has  been  scattered  and  peeled  ;  the  washing 
of  the  hands  still  exists  ;  but  nothing — no  no- 
thing from  all  history  has  been  adduced  to 
show  that  they  observe,  or  ever  have  ob- 
served  the  custom  which  Mr.  Carson  here 
attributes  to  them.  Nothing — no  nothing, 
but  this  idle  begging  of  the  question  has 
been  alleged  and  substantiated,  or  can  be. 
But  all  this  matters  nothing  to  Mr.  Carson  ! 
High,  low,  rich,  poor ;  at  home  and  abroad  ; 
winter  or  summer ;  all  are  conveniently 
furnished,  with  haths^  or  with  something  else, 
where  they  may  conveniently  immerse  them- 
selves before  eating,  as  often  as  they  have 
been  at  the  market !  It  matters  nothing 
that  these  things  were  never  heard  of; 
"  baptize  means  immerse,"  and  therefore  it 
must  be  so.  It  matters  not,  that  "  Accord, 
ing  to  the  manner  of  purifying  of  the  Jews,^^ 
there  were  set,  not  "  baths,^'  but  "  water- 
pots  ;"  and  that  those  used  at  the  marriage 
supper  in  Cana,  when  they  would  seem  to 
need  "  much  water"  if  ever,  contained  about 
'•^two  or  three  firkins  a-piece^'^   (somewhat 


I^IODE  OF  BAPTISM.  67 

over  half  a  barrel,  according  to  the  largest 
computation,)  large  enough,  it  should  seem, 
to  purify  a  whole  company  of  guests,  but  of 
questionable  capacity  for  a  single  immersion. 
No  ;  no  matter  for  difficulties.  No,  says 
Carson,  (p.  100,)  "  Even  an  inexplicable  dif. 
jiculty  would  not  affect  the  certainty  of  my 
conclusions."  But  enough  ;  I  think  you  will 
conclude  with  me,  that  here  is  sufficient 
proof,  that  Mark,  speaking  as  he  was  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaches  us  that  the  word 
"  baptism'''  was  used  to  denote  (among  other 
things)  a  ritual  washing  of  the  hands.  Of 
course,  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  is 
in  no  way  essential  to  a  baptism. 

To  my  mind,  here  is,  so  far,  demonstration  ; 
— proof  which  puts  it  beyond  my  power  to 
doubt, — that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are 
SCRIPTURAL  MODES  OF  BAPTISM.  Whether  the 
mode  of  immersion  has  a  scriptural  recogni- 
tion is  a  matter  that  is  yet  to  appear.  It  is 
certain,  without  going  farther,  that  i3DIEr- 

SION  CANNOT  BE  ESSENTIAL  TO  BAPTIS3I. 

Let  us  come  now  to  the  use  of  the  word 
baptize  with  reference  to  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Jesus  said.  Acts  i.  3,  "  John 
truly   baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 


68  MODE  OF  BAl'TISM. 

baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many 
days  hence."  I  will  not  stop  to  show  how 
grossly  this  would  sound  to  alter  it,  accord- 
ing to  the  proposal  of  our  Baptist  brethren, 
so  as  to  read  "  But  ye  shall  be  immersed  with 
(or  in)  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  baptism  was  accomplished  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  Peter  said  of  it,  "  This 
is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet 
Joel ;  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last 
days, —  \  wiW  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  dXl 
flesh." — "  He  (Jesus)  hath  shed  forth  this  5" 
so,  Acts  xi.  15,  16,  "And  as  I  began  to 
speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on 
us  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered  I 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John 
indeed  baptized  with  water^  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  mode 
of  the  baptism  here  spoken  of,  is  under  the 
figure  of  pouring  and  shedding  forth.  The 
gift  of  the  Spirit  is  never  spoken  of  under 
the  figure  of  immersion,  but  as  a  pourings 
shedding  forth,  sprinkling,  coming  down 
like  rain.  Thus,  Isaiah  xliv.  3,  "  I  will  pour 
out  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed."  Ezek.  xxxvi. 
25,  26,  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
"upon  you,   and  ye  shall  be  clean:  a  new 


3I0DE  OF  BAPTISM.  69 

heart  also  will  I  give  you."  Compare  Tit. 
iii.  5,  6,  "  By  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is 
shed  on  us  abundantly  ;"  Ps.  Ixii.  6,  "  He 
shall  come  down  upon  the  mown  grass  as 
showers  that  water  the  earth  ;"  Isaiah  Hi. 
15,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations." 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  baptizing  was 
still  by  immersion,  as  the  Spirit  was  shed 
down  ^^  abundanthj,'^  a.nd  ^' filled  the  I'oom." 
The  Scripture  says  "  the  sound"  filled  the 
room.  It  is  not  so  gross  as  to  speak  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  tilling  a  room  like  a  material 
substance,  and  thus  immersing  people.  Be- 
sides,  though  you  might  cover  people  by 
pouring  water  on  them,  provided  they  were 
enclosed  in  a  room  or  vessel,  you  could  not 
be  said  to  "  dip"  or  "  plunge"  them  in  so 
doing  5  but  immersion  (and  it  is  contended 
that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  be 
called  the  "  immersion'^  of  the  Holy  Ghost  j) 
,  immersion  has  the  act  of  dipping  entering 
necessarily  into  its  idea,  as  well  as  the  act 
of  covering.  Moreover,  all  converted  per- 
sons are  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Paul  says,  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  "For  by  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether 


70  MODE  OF  BAfTlSM. 

we  be  Jew  or  Gentile,  bond  or  free."  But 
who  will  pretend  that  all  c^onverted  persons 
are  "  immersed"  into ,  the  Holy  Ghost,  ac- 
cording to  the  manner  in  which,  (it  is  ar- 
gued,) the  apostles  were  immersed  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  by  pouring  the  Spirit  upon 
them  till  it  filled  the  room,  and  so  immersed 
them'? 

But  Carson  insists  still,  that  there  was  a 
real  immersion  here  ;  not  with  the  Spirit, 
but  with  the  emblems  of  the  Spirit.  The 
answer  has  already  been  given.  Christ  did 
not  say  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  em- 
blems of  the  Spirit.  He  said,  "  Ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  j"  with  the 
Spirit  itself,  not  with  the  emblems. 

Here  I  rest  under  this  topic.  The  mode 
of  baptism  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  that  mode  is  indicated  by  the  uniform 
figure,  is  pourings  shedding  forth,  sprinkling, 
coming  down  like  rain,  or  like  showers,  fall- 
ing upon.  I  cannot  but  wonder  that  those 
who  insist  so  much  upon  the  words,  "  bu- 
ried with  him  in  baptism,^^  are  not  able  to 
see  in  these  also  an  equal  authority  for  pro- 
per modes  of  baptism  ;  even  granting  (what 
I  do  not  grant)  that  their  favorite  phrase  has 
some  reference  to  a  mode  of  baptism. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  71 

Having  traced  the  meaning-  of  the  word 
"baptize,"  so  far  in  the  Scriptures,  turn  to 
the  early  Christian  Fathers,  whose  views  of 
what  is  essential  to  baptism  were  moulded 
on  the  meaning  of  the  term  common  among 
Christians  and  Jews.  The  following  exam- 
ples, with  several  others,  are  adduced  by 
Dr.  Pond*  "  Tertullian  speaks  of  baptism 
being  administered  by  sprinkling.  '  Who 
will  accommodate  you,  a  man  so  little  to  be 
trusted,  (asperginem  unam  aquae)  with  one 
sprinkling  of  water. ^ 

"  Origex  represents  the  wood  on  the  altar, 
over  which  water  was  poured  at  the  com- 
mand of  Elijah,  (1  Kings  xviii.  33,)  as  hav- 
ing been  baptized. 

"  Lactantius  says  that  Christ  received 
baptism,  '  that  he  might  save  the  Gentiles 
by  baptism^  that  is  (purifici  roris  perfusione) 
by  the  distilling  of  the  purifying  dew. 

''  Cyprian,  Jerome,  and  some  others  of 
the  Fathers,  understood  the  prediction,  *I 
will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,'  Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25,  as  having  reference  to  water 
baptism. 

*  See  p.  33,  34,  of  his  excellent  work  on  Baptism. 


72  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

"  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  speaking  of  a 
backslider,  whom  John  was  the  means  of 
reclaiming,  says,  '  He  Avas  baptized  a  se- 
cond time  with  tears.'' 

"  Athanasius  reckons  up  eight  several 
*  baptisms,'  and  the  sixth  in  his  enumeration 
is  that  '  of  tears' 

"  Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  '  I  know  of  a 
fourth  baptism,  that  by  martyrdom  and 
blood  ;  and  I  know  of  a'fifth,  that  of  tears.'' 
The  baptism  of  tears  and  blood  was  a  favor- 
ite phraseology^with  the  early  Christians." 

Now  in  all  these  baptisms^  of  the  "  wood 
and  the  altar,"  of  'Hears''  and  "■  blood,"  the 
idea  of  "  dipping,"  "  plunging,"  "  burying," 
or  "  immersing,"  is  excluded.  "  Wet," 
"washed,"  "sprinkled,"  "poured  upon," 
those  spoken  of  here  as  baptized  might  be  ; 
but  whether  men  may  be  dipped  or  immersed 
in  their  own  tears  or  blood,  admits  of  a 
question.  If  it  be  said  that  these  represen- 
tations are  figurative,  certainly  there  is  no 
immersion  about  them,  even  in  figure. 

The  conclusion  is,  that  the  early  fathers 
as  well  as  the  Apostles,  understood  the 
word  "  baptize^'  in  quite  another  sense  than 
that  of  immerse.     Their  idea  of  baptism  was 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  73 

that  of  a  purifying  (or  consecrating)  by 
sprinkling  or  pourings  and  these  are  the 
modes  under  which  is  constantly  represented 
the  purifying  (the  baptism)  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  argument  under 
the  first  head,  and  we  are  ready  for  the 
question,  What  would  the  immediate  disciples 
of  our  Lord  understand  from  the  simple  face 
of  the  command  baptize  %  Would  they  con- 
sider immersion  as  essential  %  I  think  the 
conclusion  is  inevitable  ;  it  is  impossible. 
Sprinkling  and  pouring  they  would  inevi- 
tably consider  lawful  and  proper  modes  ; 
and  so  far,  it  has  not  appeared  that  they 
have  any  notion  of  immersing  at  all :  or  any 
authority  for  it,  if  direct  authority  be  sought 
for  a  specific  mode. 

I  have  done  with  the  argument  from  the 
meaning  of  the  word  ;  and  proceed  to  the 
second  inquiry. 

2.  "  Is  there  satisfactory  evidence  that  the 
disciples  of  Christ  always  administered  bap* 
tism  by  immersion,  I  say  always  y  for  if 
they  did  not  always  do  so,  immersion  can- 
not be  essential,  even  though  it  could  be 
proved  (which  it  cannot  be,)  that  immersion 

was  the  common  mode. 
7 


74  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

John  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  "  because 
there  was  much  water  there.''^  It  is  contended 
that  the  '■''much  water-''''  could  be  needed  only 
for  immersion,  and  that  therefore  John  bap- 
tized by  immersion. 

It  is  not'  a  little  remarkable  that  they 
who  print  this  in  capitals  to  prove  that  John 
baptized  by  immersion,  presently  find  water 
enough  in  Jerusalem  to  baptize  three  thou- 
sand  in  a  small  part  of  one  day.  They  are 
fond  of  asking,  "  Why  did  he  go  to  the  ri- 
ver V  They  dwell  much  upon  "  Following 
THE  Savior  down  the  banks  of  Jordan  ;" 
and  upon  *'  Going  to  the  river."  But 
though  Jordan  was  at  hand,  we  read  no 
more  about  the  disciples  going  "  to  the  ri- 
ver." We  hear  nothing  said  by  the  Apostles 
about  following  the  Savior  down  the  banks 
of  Jordan.  They  baptize  wherever  they 
may  happen  to  be  ;  and  are  never  at  a  loss, 
or  compelled  to  remove  to  another  place 
for  the  purpose  of  finding  "  much  water.''^ 
It  does  not  appear  that  they  ever  think  it 
needs  much  water  for  baptism.  It  seems 
strange,  therefore,  that  John  went  to  Enon 
to  find  much  water  for  the  mere  purpose  of 
baptizing. 


MODE  OF   BAPTISM.  75 

John  preached  "  in  the  wilderness^''^  (Matt, 
iii.)  It  is  said,  Mark  i.  4,  "  John  did  bap- 
tize in  the  wilderness."  It  is  said  that 
"  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  re- 
Sfion  round  about  went  out  to  John."  Such 
multitudes  would  need  "  much  water^^  for 
other  purposes  than  immersion  ;  and  John 
must  needs  resort  to  a  place  where  much 
water  might  be  found  to  furnish  those  mul- 
titudes in  the  wilderness  with  drink,  unless 
indeed  he  could  work  a  miracle,  and  we 
read  that  "John  did  no  miracle."  This 
may  seem,  at  first  view,  a  little  matter  to  us, 
in  this  land  of  wells,  and  brooks,  and  springs  ; 
but  all  who  are  familiar  with  travels  in  the 
East,  know  how  important  a  considerable 
caravan  finds  it  to  get  near  a  good  watering 
place  for  an  encampment,  even  for  a  single 
night. 

Now  what  was  this  "  Wilderness  of  Ju- 
dea 1"  Take  the  map,  and  look  eastward 
from  Jerusalem  and  Judea  to  Jordan,  to  the 
region  lying  between  these,  and  from  the 
Dead  Sea  up  to  what  is  supposed  to  be 
Enon.  You  have  embraced  the  location  of 
the  wilderness  of  Judea.  And  what  is  this 
wilderness  ?       An     American    lady,   (Mrs. 


76  MODE  OF  BAPTISBI. 

Haight,)  who  traveled  up  this  region  from 
Jericho  a  short  time  since,  thus  describes 
her  journey  in  Vol.  2,  p.  131  of  her  travels. 
"  Our  course  lay  due  north,  up  the  valley 
of  the  Jordan.  We  replenished  our  water- 
bottles  (bags),  as  we  were  warned  that  we 
should  find  no  more  until  afternoon.  At 
this  spot  we  left  all  signs  of  cultivation  ;  the 
plain  was  afterward  one  entire  desert^  during 
the  whole  day's  ride  of  twenty-five  miles. 
The  soil  was  a  compact  gravel  or  as  geolo- 
gists call  it,  a  "  hard  pan,"  partially  cov- 
ered with  a  short  dry  grass,  the  result  of  the 
winter  rains,  which  withers  up  the  moment 
their  influence  is  past.  Not  a  single  object 
or  incident  occurred  during  this  most  te- 
dious and  painful  day  of  all  my  life.  This 
was  the  first  time  since  we  left  Beyroot  that 
we  had  suffered  any  length  of  time  for  want 
of  water.  By  nine  o'clock  the  intense  heat 
of  the  sun  made  the  water  in  the  leather 
bottles  so  warm  that  we  could  not  drink  it. 
Extreme  thirst  obliged  us  merely  to  moisten 
our  parched  tongues."* 

Josephus  bears  the  same  testimony  of  this 
wilderness.f     "  The  whole  plain,"  says  he, 

♦  N.  Y.  Observer,  April  11,  1840.     t  Ibid. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  77 

"  is  destitute  of  water,  except  the  Jordan." 
In  another  place  he  says,  that  "  The  Jordan, 
dividing  the  lake  of  Gennesareth  in  the 
midst,  passes  through  an  extensive  desert  in 
to  the  Dead  Sea."  Eusebius*  speaks  more 
than  once  of  the  Desert  of  the  Jordan. 

In  this  wilderness  John  was  preaching  and 
baptizing.  There  seems  here  reason  enough 
why,  being  in  the  wilderness,  he  should  "  go 
TO  THE  river"  even  if  it  were  not  to  im- 
merse ;  and  reason  enough  why  he  should 
resort  to  Enon  for  much  water,  even  for 
other  purposes  than  immersion.  The  im- 
mense multitudes  would  need  water  for 
drink  ;  or  if  they  had  prudently  brought  a 
supply  in  their  leathern  bags,  John  might 
still  have  preferred  the  waters  of  the  river 
for  the  purpose  of  purifying ;  and  the  tra- 
veler "Sandysf  says,  that  at  Enon  are  little 
SPRINGS  gushing  out,  whose  waters  are  soon 
absorbed  by  the  sands."  Could  not  these 
springs,  with  their  streams,  have  been  the 
(:i-oXXa  I'Jura,)  "  many  waters,^'  for  the  sake  of 
which  John  resorted  to  Enon  ;  for  it  cannot 
be  supposed  but  that  there  was  as  "  muck 
water"  any  where  along  the  stream  of  Jor- 

*  Ibid.  t  Hamilton  on  Baptism,  p.  92. 

7* 


78  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

dan  as  opposite  to  Enon  ;  and  to  fiad  much 
water  in  Jordan  could  be  no  reason  for  go- 
ing to  Enon  more  than  for  "  going  to  the 
river"  at  anj''  other  spot  %  We  read  no  more 
of  "  going  to  the  river,"  or  of  going  to  any 
spot  to  find  much  water  for  the  purpose  of 
baptizing.  I  leave  it,  therefore,  for  you  to 
judge,  whether  the  argument  for  immersion 
from  going  "  to  the  river,"  and  from  going 
to  Enon,  because  there  was  "  much  water 
there,"  does  not  dissipate  and  scatter  away 
like  the  mists  before  the  sun  and  wind.  So 
falls  another  pillar  of  the  immersion  scheme 
at  the  slightest  touch  of  investigation,  and 
before  the  slightest  test  of  truth. 

"  But  Jesus  came  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water, ''^  The  argument  drawn  from  this 
is  distinct  from  that  of  going  to  the  river, 
and  from  the  "  much  water"  at  Enon.  It 
therefore  merits  a  distinct  examination. 

Did  Jesus  emerge  from  beneath  the  surface 
of  the  water ;  or  did  he  simply  go  up  out  of 
the  water,  or  from  the  water  ?  The  origi- 
nal language  here,  is  such  as  can  have  no 
reference  to  emerging  from  under  water. 
The  Greek  is  ^iva.(iaivwv  ano  ruv  vSaros, — "  going 
tip  out  of  (or  from)  the  water,"     The  verb 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  79 

and  the  preposition  both  forbid  the  idea  of 
emeroring  from  under  water.  To  express 
this  both  should  have  been  changed,  and  the 
Greek  is  supplied  with  words  to  express  the 
idea  exactly.  And  Carson,  who  is  a  pro- 
found Greek  scholar,  and  never  admits 
against  his  scheme  any  thing  that  he  is  not 
compelled  to  admit,  says,  (p.  200),  "  I  admit 
the  proper  translation  of  a-zo  (apo)  is  from^ 
not  out  of.  I  perfectly  agree  with  Mr.  Ewing 
Jiat  «-"  (the  word  here  translated  '  out  of,^) 
would  have  its  meaning  fully  verified,  if 
they  had  only  gone  down  to  the  edge  of  the 
water.''''  But,  says  he,  "My  argument  is 
this.  If  baptism  had  not  been  by  immersion, 
there  can  be  no  adequate  cause  alleged /or 
going  to  the  river.  Can  sober  judgment, 
can  candor  suppose,  that  if  a  handful  of  wa- 
ter would  have  sufficed  for  baptism,  they 
would  have  gone  to  the  river  ?" 

I  trust  I  have  your  judgment  decisively 
given  on  the  subject  of  *'  going  to  the  river  :" 
and  the  other  part,  that  of  "  coming  out  of 
the  water,"  Mr.  Carson  has  formally  given 
up.  So  in  neither  case  is  there  the  shadow 
of  a  proof,  or  of  a  presumption  that  the  bap- 
tism was  performed  by  immersion.     Going 


80  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

into  the  water ^  (even  if  we  admit  that  the  Sa- 
vior went  further  than  "  the  edge  of  the  wa- 
ter,") and  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  one  has  been  un- 
der water,  or  that  he  has  been  in  knee-deep. 
How  much  less  can  a  simple  going  u^  from 
the  water,  when  it  is  not  certain  that  one 
has  been  into  the  water  at  all,  necessarily 
imply  that  he  has  been  under  water  %  How 
idle  to  rely  upon  this  to  prove  it. 

If  the  mode  of  John's  baptism  was  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  then  he  could  well 
baptize  in  his  short  ministry  the  crowds  of 
people  described  as  "  Jerusalem  and  all  Ju- 
dea,  and  the  region  round  about."  If  not, 
calculations  have  been  made  on  reasonable 
data  which  seem  to  render  their  immersion 
physically  impossible. 

But  there  is  another  reason  for  supposing 
that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  a  mode  other 
than  immersion  ;  and  in  the  absence  of  all 
good  reason  for  supposing  that  he  was  im- 
mersed, this  reason  is  entitled  to  some 
weight.  Why  was  he  baptized  ]  Not  to 
wash  away  sins,  for  he  had  none  ;  not  unto 
repentance,  for  he  needed  it  not.  John 
therefore  forbade  him.     He  knew  that  the 


3I0DE  OF  BAPTISM.  81 

ordinary  design  and  import  of  his  baptism 
were  inapplicable  to  that  holy  being  Jesus 
Christ.  Why  then  was  Jesus  baptized  1 
He  answered  himself:  *'For  so  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  But  as  this 
could  have  no  reference  to  repentance  or 
remission  of  sins,  we  look  for  the  reference 
in  another  quarter  ,*  to  wit,  the  righteous- 
ness required  in  the  law.  The  law  required 
those  who  were  about  to  enter  upon  the 
priesthood  to  be  purified ;  thus,  Ex.  xxix. 
4,  "  And  Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt 
bring  to  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  and  shalt  wash  them  with  wa- 
ter J^  Numbers  viii.  7,  shows  how  this  wash- 
ing was  to  performed  j  "  And  thus  shalt 
thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them  ;  Sprin- 
kle water  of  purifying  upon  them.''''  Jesus 
therefore  "  began  to  be  about  thirty  years 
old,"  the  age  at  which  the  Levites  were  to 
enter  upon  the  priesthood.  He  was  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah,  "  of  which  tribe  Moses  spake 
nothing  concerning  priesthood."  Heb.  vii. 
14.  "  Yet  he  was  to  be  a  priest,  on  special 
appointment  of  God."'  Heb.  vii.  17-28. — 
''  Now  no  man  taketh  this  honor  to  him- 
self." Heb.  V.  4.      To  fulfil    therefore  the 


S"2  MODE  OF  BArilS.M. 

righteousness  of  the  law,  he  went  to  John, 
his  **  messeng-er"  sent  "before  his  face,"  to 
show  him  unto  Israel.  He  went  at  thirty 
years  old,  not  before.  He  went  to  enter 
upon  his  priesthood ;  and  was  purified  by 
his  special  forerunner,  to  fulfil  "  all  the 
righteousness  of  the  law.''  But  this  purifi- 
cation for  the  priesthood  according  to  the 
law,  was  performed  not  by  immersion,  but 
by  sprinkling.  I  see  little  reason  for  a  doubt 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  baptized  by  sprinkling. 

Take  now  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch. 
Acts  viii.  38,  39.  *"  And  they  went  dawn 
both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eu- 
nvchy  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they 
were  come  vp  aid  of  the  water ,  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  caught  away  Philip." 

On  this  Mr.  Carson  says,  (p.  '203,)  "  The 
man  who  can  read  it,  and  not  see  immersion 
in  it,  must  have  in  his  mind  something  un- 
favorable to  the  investigation  of  truth.  As 
long  as  I  fear  God,  I  cannot,  for  all  the  king- 
doms of  the  world,  resist  the  evidence  of 
this  single  document.  Xay,  had  I  no  con- 
science, I  could  not  as  a  scholar  attempt  to 
expel  immersion  from  this  account.  All  the 
ingenuity  of  all  the  critics  in  Europe  cannot 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  83 

expel  immersion  from  this  account.  Amidst 
the  most  violent  perversion  that  it  can  sus_ 
tain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry  out  immer- 
sion^ nuLERSioN.''  The  fact,  that  in  a  work 
in  which  he  goes  over  the  whole  field  of  de- 
hate,  and  discusses  the  meaning  of  baptize 
from  old  Homer  to  the  end  of  Greek  ;  the 
fact  that  io  such  a  work,  consisting  of  *274 
pages,  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  he  spends  *24- 
pages  upon  this  single  passage  of  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch,  shows  of  how  much  im- 
portance he  makes  it  ;  and  indeed  we  are 
ready  to  suspect,  from  his  spending  so 
much  labor  on  so  very  plain  a  case,  that  he 
found  it  not  ver^-  easy  to  make  a  clear  im- 
mersion out  of  it  after  all. 

I  profess  I  see  no  immersion  in  the  ac- 
count. Whence  is  the  immersion  inferred  \ 
From  the  fact  that  the  Eunuch  icent  into  the 
water,  and  came  up  out  of  the  water  \  But 
they  went  down  ''  both''  into  the  water,  and 
*'  ihe-y'  (both)  came  up  out  of  the  water.  U 
going  into  the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of 
the  water  proves  an  immersion,  it  proves 
that  Philip  was  immersed  as  well  as  the  Eu- 
nuch :  and  what  thus  proves  too  much, 
(proves  what  is  not  true.)  proves  nothing. 


84  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

ft  Is  it  proved  from  the  fact  that  the  Eunuch 
was  baptized  ?  What  that  baptizing  was, 
is  the  question.  I  have  proved  that  people 
and  things  were  often  baptized  wlien  they 
were  not  immersed,  but  only  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon.  The  baptism  proves  no  im 
mersion. 

Precisely  the  same  words  might  have  been 
used  in  the  narrative,  had  they  come  to  a 
stream  not  ankle-deep,  and  gone  down  both 
into*  the  water  ;  and  if  Philip,  having  no 
convenient  basin  or  dish,  had  dipped  his  hand 
in  the  water,  and  poured  or  sprinkled  it 
upon  the  Eunuch  ;  and  if  then  they  had  both 
come  up  out  of  the  water.  Who  will  prove 
to  me  that  this  stream  was  a  foot  deep  1 
Who  will  prove  it  a  stream  at  all  %  Who 
will  prove  the  quantity  of  water  there  was 

*  It  is  not  certain  that  they  went  further  than  to  the 
water.  To  make  the  Greek  sis  necessarily  mean  into, 
would  make  Jesus  come  into  Jerusalem,  when  he  was 
as  far  off  as  ''  Bethphage  and  the  Mount  of  Olives," 
Matth.  xxi.  1.  It  would  make  our  Lord  command 
Peter  go  into  the  sea,  when  he  was  only  to  go  to  the 
sea,  Matth.  xvii.  27,  and  Peter  must  needs  have 
thrown  himself  into  the  sea  after  the  fish,  instead  of 
casting  his  hook  in.  These  arc  but  specimens  of  nu- 
merous  similar  absurdities. 


3I0DE  OF  BAPTISM.  85 

sufficient  to  render  an  immersion  possible  ? 
If  it  was,  who  will  prove  that  the  Eunuch 
was  immersed  1  I  see  no  proof  of  immer- 
sion here.  The  only  show  of  proof  is  by- 
begging  the  question,  and  taking  the  very- 
thing  to  he  proved,  for  granted. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  some  proba- 
bility, (aside  from  the  fact  that  baptism  was 
commonly  performed  by  sprinkling  or 
pouring),  to  suppose  that  the  Eunuch  was 
baptized  by  sprinkling.  He  was  reading  the 
passage  in  Isaiah  liii.  7,  which  he  did  not 
understand.  Philip  began  "  at  the  begin- 
ning"— viz.,  at  the  beginning  of  that  pro- 
phecy concerning  Christ  (for  the  book  was 
not  divided  into  chapters  and  verses,)  and 
that  was  at  the  52d  Chap.  v.  13, — "  Behold 
my  servant."  Beginning  here,  Philip  ex- 
pounded the  Scripture.  He  must  needs  have 
read  and  expounded  those  remarkable  words 
in  v.  15,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tioTis,'''  How  sprinkle  1  By  purifying  : — an 
inward  purifying  by  his  Spirit ;  and  a  puri- 
fying by  his  blood ;  by  the  "  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Christ ;"  and  by  the  Baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  outward  sign  of  these 
inward  and  spiritual  things  is  the  outward 
8 


86  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

purification  by  sprinkling.  Now  the  expla- 
nation of  this  passage  would  most  naturally- 
lead  to  the  conversation  about  baptism  :  the 
outward  baptism  by  water.  Baptism  is  the 
only  ritual  application  of  water  under  the 
Christian  dispensation ;  and  the  only  figure 
chosen  to  represent  the  spiritual  cleansing 
by  Christ  is  sprinkling.  This  is  the  only 
use  of  water  foretold  by  the  prophets  even 
in  figure.  Is  it  improbable  that  the  exposi- 
tion of  this  passage  led  to  the  conversation 
about  baptism  1  And  when  they  casually 
came  to  water,  the  Eunuch  said,  "  See,  here  is 
water  :  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  1" 
In  the  absence  of  all  proof  to  the  contrary, 
this  incident  goes  to  render  it  probable  that 
the  Eunuch  was  baptized  by  sprinkling  ;  and 
these  two  probabilities  concerning  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Savior  and  of  the  Eunuch, 
strengthened  by  numerous  probabilities  of 
the  same  kind,  which  are  yet  to  be  mention- 
ed, go  to  corroborate  each  other. 

Two  other  expressions  are  much  relied 
on  as  proof  of  the  mode  of  baptism :  those 
in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12.  In  these, 
believers  are  said  to  be  baptized  into  the 
"  death"  of  Jesus  Christ:  and  '^buried  with 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  87 

him  by  baptism  into  death."  The  lan^a.^e 
is  fio-urative.  There  is  just  as  much  reason 
to  argue  from  them  that  believers  are  lite- 
rally put  to  death  in  baptism  as  that  they  are 
literally  buried  under  water  in  baptism  :  nay, 
the  dying  is  the  thing  more  insisted  on,  and 
indeed  the  principal  idea  j  the  one  on  which 
the  whole  force  of  the  passage  turns.  They 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  "  into 
death.^^  They  are  "  planted  together,  in  the 
likeness," — (not  of  his  grave  or  burial)  but 
in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  They  are 
"  crucified  with  him."  They  are  "  baptized' 
— not  into  his  grave  or  burial,  but  "  into  his 
death.^'  If  we  are  to  infer  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism from  these  figures,  the  evidence  is 
strongest  for  drawing  a  resemblance  for  the 
mode  of  baptism  from  hanging  on  the  cross  : 
for  that  was  the  mode  of  his  dying  :  and  the 
passage  says  we  are  "  crucified  with  him." 
But  the  reference  here  is  not  to  the  mode, 
though  the  words  furnish  a  happy  sound  for. 
our  Baptist  brethren  to  play  upon.  The 
argument  is, — "  We  are  dead  with  Christ, 
and  we  must  no  more  live  to  sin  than  a  dead 
body  must  live.  We  are  dead  ;  and  more — 
we  are  buried ;  as  we  often  say  to  express 


88  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

strongly  the  fact  that  a  person  has  ceased 
from  living,  "  He  is  dead  and  huried^ 
The  burying  is  the  conclusive  token  of  his 
being  dead  :  so  the  baptism  is  a  token — not 
of  the  burying — but  of  the  death, — we  are 
buried  "  into  death  ;"  we  are  *'  Baptized 
INTO  HIS  DEATH."  It  is  not  the  mode  of  the 
baptism  that  is  referred  to,  but  ihe  effect  of 
the  baptism : — "  Our  old  man  is  crucified 
with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  de- 
stroyed :"  "  that  henceforth  we  should  not 
serve  sin  :"  "  that  henceforth  we  should  be 
dead  to  sin."  I  confess  I  see  no  manner  of 
force  in  the  argument  drawn  from  the  pas- 
sage in  favor  of  immersion.  The  argument 
being  from  the  effect  of  baptism  rather  than 
from  its  mode,  both  the  language  and  the 
argument  are  equally  appropriate,  whatever 
the  mode. 

In  1  Cor.  X.  2,  the  apostle  says,  "  The  Is- 
raelites were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Apparently,  from  the 
quantity  of  water  in  the  vicinity,  this  passage 
as  well  as  that  in  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  concerning 
the  "  Eight  souls  saved  by  water :  the  like 
figure  whereunto  even  baptism  doth  now 
save  us," — has  been  claimed  as  proving  im- 


1 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  89 

mersion.  Surely  there  was  water  enough  in 
the  Red  Sea  to  immerse  the  Israelites  ;  and 
water  enough  in  the  Deluge  to  immerse  the 
world,  and  literally  to  "  bury  it  into  death.^' 
But  it  seems  to  be  fororotten  that  the  "  eiorht 
souls  saved  by  water"  were  in  the  ark,  and 
neither  drowned  nor  immersed  at  all  :  and 
that  the  Israelites  who  were  baptized  unto 
Moses  walked  on  dry  land.  They  suffered 
no  immersion,  unless  one  may  be  immersed 
on  dry  land.  If  they  were  wet  at  all,  it  was 
by  the  spray  of  the  sea,  and  by  the  rain  that 
dropped  from  the  clouds  :  as  in  Ps.  Ixxvii. — 
"  Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a  flock  by 
the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron  :" — "  The 
waters  saw  thee,  O  God  :  the  waters  saw 
thee ;  they  were  afraid :  the  depths  also 
were  troubled:  the  clouds  ;70wrecf  out  water.'' 
If  there  is  any  mode  of  baptism  here,  it  is  a 
sprinklings  or  such  a  pouring  out  of  water 
as  falls  in  drops.  A  baptism  there  was :  an 
immersion  there  was  not. 

The  instances  so  far  considered  are  the 
ones  relied  on,  to  prove  that  immersion  was 
the  mode  of  baptism,  and  the  only  one 
practised  by  the  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ,  I  think  1  have  shown  that  they 
8* 


%0  MODE    OF    BAPTISM. 

prove  no  such  thing ;  that  they  afford 
scarcely  the  faintest  shadow  of  it :  but  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  probability  is  all  in 
favor  of  a  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

In  the  remaining  instances  the  advocates 
of  immersion  are  compelled  to  take  the 
laboring  oar,  and  render  that  certain  or 
probable,  which  on  the  face  of  it  seems  im- 
possible. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  ("  the  feast  of 
weeks,  of  the  first  fruits  of  wheat  harvest.^* 
Exod.  XXXV.  22,)  the  season  when  the  brook 
Kidron  was  dry,  and  when,  "  save  the  pool 
of  Siloam,  no  living  fountain  gladdened  the 
city,"  three  thousand  were  baptized  in  a 
small  part  of  one  day.  Now  what  do  those 
who  make  John  take  Jerusalem  and  Judea 
out  to  Enon  to  immerse  them  because  there 
is  much  water  there  ?  All  at  once,  and  very 
conveniently,  there  are  discovered  a  num- 
ber of  reservoirs  and  baths.  But  it  is  forgot- 
ten that  these  can  belong  only  to  the  rich ; 
and  not  many  rich  or  mighty  were  in  the 
habit  of  befriending  the  followers  of  Christ ; 
and  the  great  mass  of  the  converts  appear 
to  be  strangers  at  Jerusalem.     Not  the  least 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  91 

intimation  is  found  that  such  bathing  places 
were  resorted  to.  And  a  simple  mathemati- 
cal calculation  will  show  that  the  eleven 
apostles  could  hardly  have  immersed  three 
thousand  persons  in  so  short  a  time.  All 
these  circumstances  show  a  high  degree  of 
probability,  that  there  was  no  immersion 
here. 

The  Jailer  (Acts  xvi.  19-30)  was  baptized 
in  the  night,  and  it  should  seem   in  prison. 
But  it  is  urged  there  might  be  a  bath  there  : 
and  long  arguments  are    held  to  show  that 
the  prison  might  have  been  furnished  with  a 
bath,  in  which  the  Jailer  might  have  been 
immersed.       Surelj',  surely,  that  is  a  happy 
facility  of  discovery,  which  after  making  it 
necessary  for  all  Judea  to  go  out  to  Jordan 
to  find  water  enough  to  be  baptized ;  and  to 
go  to    a    particular  point   on    Jordan, — to 
Enon,  because  there  is  much  water  there  j — 
can  presently  find  water  enough  any  where 
and   every   where.     If  a   bath   should  per- 
chance be  wanted,  there  is  no  difficulty  :  a 
stroke  of  the  pen  places  it  there  ;  and  a  cer- 
tain immersion  is  performed  without  a  scrap 
of  evidence  in  the  history  to  show  that  an 
immersion  was  possible  ! 


92  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

But  this  ground  is  now  very  generally 
given  up,  and  a  way  for  immersion  is  found 
out  even  without  a  bath  in  the  prison.  It  is 
now  maintained  that  they  went  forth  ; 
because  he  was  brought  out  of  the  prison, 
and  then  brought  into  the  house  ;  and  it  is 
demanded,  as  an  unanswerable  argument, 
why  he  was  taken  abroad  in  the  night,  ex- 
cept for  immersion  ;  or  why  taken  abroad  at 
all,  if  he  might  be  baptized  by  sprinkling 
within. 

Now  this  is  to  give  up  the  baptism  in  a 
bath  within  the  prison  \  for  I  take  it  as  a 
point  not  to  be  debated,  that  he  was  not 
baptized  both  in  th6  prison  and  out  of  it,  in 
one  and  the  same  baptism.  But  in  letting 
the  strong  hold  go,  as  they  in  justice  should 
have  they  found  another  where  they  may 
rest  secure?  I  think  not.  The  Jailer  thrust 
them  into  the  inner  prison  :  then  he  brought 
them  out  of  that  into  the  more  common 
part  of  the  prison  5 — not  out  of  doors 
abroad;  for  we  see  that  he  was  ready  to 
kill  himself  when  he  supposed  the  prisoners 
had  'escaped,  even  by  means  of  an  earth- 
quake. In  this  prison  proper  the  baptism 
was  performed :    then   the   Jailer  brought 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  93 

them  into  his  house  ;  i.  e.  into  his  dwelling 
apartments,  doubtless  attached  to  the  prison. 
There  was  no  going  abroad  at  all.  Paul  would 
not  go  out  upon  leave,  till  the  magistrates 
came  and  fetched  him  out.  So,  the  bath  is 
given  up,  and  the  substitute  fails  ;  and  ac- 
cording to  the  proper  rules  of  argument  we 
sliould  be  entitled  to  have  it  granted,  on 
their  own  ground, — that  here  was  no  immer- 
sion. Every  expedient  has  failed,  and  we 
have,  in  all  reason,  a  simple  common  bap- 
tism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

Paul's  baptism  is  recorded  in  Acts  ix. 
17,  18.  He  was  in  his  chamber,  weak  with 
fasting  three  days.  "  He  arose  and  was 
baptized  ;  and  when  he  had  received  meat 
he  was  strengthened,''^  What  pretence  for 
a  bath  in  this  inner  chamber  \  What  is 
there  to  show  that  he  went  abroad  in  his 
weak  state,  before  he  had  received  meat 
and  was  strengthened'?  I  am  unable  even 
to  conjecture  what.  It  was,  I  think,  be- 
yond proper  question,  a  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling or  pouring. 

The  baptism  of  Cornelius  is  recorded 
Acts  X.  44.  Those  who  heard  Peter  were 
first  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.     '*  And 


94  MODE  OP  BAPTISM. 

as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning*.  Then  re- 
membered I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that 
he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  w^'iter, 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost J^  Acts  xi.  15.  He  reasoned  at  the 
time  thus:  These  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  can  any  man  forbid  water  ?  They 
have  received  the  greater  baptism,  can  any 
man  forbid  the  less  :  they  have  the  reality  ? 
can  any  man  forbid  the  sign  ?  His  idea 
seems  to  be — not  that  they  might  be  carried 
and  applied  to  the  water  ;  but  that  water 
might  he  brought  and  applied  to  them.  The 
Spirit's  mode  of  baptizing  was  a  falling  upon, 
and  such  it  seems  clearly,  was  the  probable 
application  of  the  water  here. 

Here  I  rest  under  the  second  inquiry. 
Not  only  is  there  no  evidence  that  the 
apostles  always  baptized  by  immersion,  but 
clear  evidence  to  the  contrary :  and,  1  add, 
no  certain  evidence  that  they  immersed  at 
all.  The  probability  even,  so  far  as  concerns 
this,  is  on  the  other  side.  I  do  profess  my- 
self unable,  and  my  belief  that  all  other  men 
are  unable,  to  make  out  a  clear  case  of 
baptism  by  immersion  in  the  New  Testa- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  95 

ment.*  And  yet  if  twenty  might  be  made 
out,  it  would  not  invalidate  the  argument,  as 
I  shall  show  under  the  third  inquiry. 

Previously  to  entering  upon  this,  however, 
it  seems  desirable  to  say  a  word,  in  passing, 
on  the  argument  from  history.  It  is  not 
indeed  essential.  I  care  not  who  gets  the 
argument  from  history,  provided  I  get  the 
argument  clear  and  decisive  from  the  word 
of  God. 

That  immersion  was  early  and  extensively 
practised  is  certain.  That  it  was  not  con- 
sidered   essential    is    also    certain.^      The 

*  Rev.  Wm.  T.  Hamilton  in  his  work  on  baptism 
says,  (p.  89),  "  And  I  hesitate  not  to  assert  that  no  man 
can  prove  that  cither  John  or  the  Apostles  baptized  by  im- 
mersion;^^— "  and  for  any  to  assume  that  one  mode 
only  was  employed,  and  then  demand  that  all  should 
comply  with  that  mode,  while  they  can  produce  neither 
express  command  nor  an  undeniable  example  of  bap- 
tism  by  immersion  in  the  Bible,  is  rather  a  bold  stand 
to  take ;  especially  for  those  who  insist  that  in  a  posi- 
tive  ordinance,  the  law  of  the  ordinance  must  be  our 
only  guide." 

t  Justin  is  relied  on  to  prove  that  immersion  only 
was  practised  in  his  day.  But  he  uses  such  language 
as  renders  it  CERTAIN  that  he  by  no  means  considered 
immersion  essential ;  and  such  as  renders  it  doubtful 
whether  he  meant  immersion  at  all.     Thus  when  he  is 


96  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

practice  was  never  invariable.  The  sick 
and  feeble  were  baptized  by  affusion  or 
sprinkling  ;  and  baptism  in  such  modes  was 
distinctly  recognized  as  valid  in  other 
cases.*     Novatian  was  baptized  by  affusion 

writing  to  the  Emperor  he  invariably  describes  the 
baptism,  and  does  not  use  the  word  baptize  at  all.  He 
describes  the  baptism  by  the  words  Xoiw  (louo)  *'  to 
WASH,"  and  Xovrpov,  washing.  But  these  words  referred 
to  no  particular  mode  of  applying  water  ;  least  of  all  to 
an  indispensable  immersion;  and  if  bethought  immer- 
sion essential  he  wilfully  misled  the  Emperor,  who 
would  of  necessity  understand  that  they  were  washed 
in  any  mode,  and  not  necessarily  immersed ;  but  if  in 
any  specific  mode, — by  an  application  of  water  to  the 
subject,  not  of  the  subject  to  the  water. 

It  is  further  remarkable  that  when  Justin  writes  to 
Jews,  (in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,)  he  uses  the 
words  PazTi^uj  (Baptize,)  and  'Xovco  ilouo)  indifferently, 
as  being  synonymous.  Clemens  Alexandrinus  does 
the  same,  A.  D.  190. 

"When  the  early  fathers  speak  of  baptism  as  a  regene- 
ration, they  often  cite  Titus  iii.  5,  Sia  'Xovrpov,  (loutron) 
the  "  WASHING  of  regeneration ;"  thus  showing  that 
they  considered  baptism  as  a  washing  (performed  in 
any  mode  indifferently)  and  not  as  necessarily  an  im- 
mersing. (See  this  point  ably  discussed  in  the  "  Chro- 
nicle OF  THE  Church,"  May  25,  and  June  29,  183S ; 
from  which  I  derive  these  facts.) 

*  Cyprian  says,  *'  Sprinkling  is  of  like  value  with 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  97 

as  he  lay  upon  his  bed  in  sickness.  The 
Emperor  Constantine  was  baptized  by  Euse- 
bius,  ofNicomedia,  lying  on  his  bed,  clothed 
in  white.  ^ixty  or  seventy  years  after  the 
Apostles,  a  Jew  while  traveling  with  Chris- 
tians  fell  sick  and  desired  baptism.  Not 
having  water,  they  sprinkled  him  thrice  with 
sand.  "  He  recovered.  His  case  was  report- 
ed to  the  bishop,  who  decided  that  the  man 
was  baptized,  if  only  he  had  water  poured  on 
him  again."*  Laurentius  is  mentioned  as 
baptizing  two  persons,  Romanus  and  Lu- 
cilius,  by  affusion.  "  A  little  while  before 
he  suffered,  he  baptized  one  of  his  execu- 
tioners with  a  pitcher  of  water.^^'f  Many 
such  cases  are  all  along  incidentally  record- 
ed. Upon  the  best  search  that  I  can  make, 
I  am  compelled  to  abide  by  the  conclusion 
of  Dr.  Pond;  who  says,  (p.  43.)  "I  propose 
it  as  an  indubitable  fact  that  immersion  was 
never  considered  essential  to  baptism  till  the 
rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  Germany,  in  the 
sixteenth  century." 

the  salutary  bath,  and  where  these  things  are  done  in 
the  church,  where  the  faith  is  sound  of  the  giver  and 
receiver,  all  is  valid" 

*  In  Pond,  p.  45.  t  Ibid.  p.  48. 

9 


98  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

History  shows  that  Christians  early  laid 
an  improper  stress  upon  baptism,  attributing 
to  it  an  efficacy  which  by  no  means  belongs 
to  it.  To  the  simple  rite  of  baptism  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion  practised  by  the 
apostles,  they  soon  added  a  more  thorough 
washing  with  a  greater  quantity  of  water.* 
And  this  is  scarce  to  be  wondered  at  when 
we  remember  how  Peter  said,  "  Lord  not  my 
feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my  head."  And 
yet  our  Savior  did  seem  to  caution  his  disci- 
ples against  this  tendency  to  overdo  and 
overburden  religious  rites,  when  he  replied, 
''  He  that  is  washed,  needeth  not,  save  to 
wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  The 
tendency  was  never  to  throw  off  any  part  of 
the  ceremony  but  to  add  more.  To  immer- 
sion they  soon  added  a  trine  immersion  5 
exorcisms,  (or  expelling  the  devil  from  the 
candidate)  5  putting  salt  on  the  tongue  ; 
anointing  the  eyes,  ears,  and  mouth,  with 
spittle  ;  marking  with  the  sign  of  the  cross, 
clothing  in  a  white  robe,  and  anointing  with 

*  Jerome  speaks  of  a  mode  of  baptism  as  common  in 
the  ancient  church,  which  was  not  to  dip  tiie  whole 
body,  but  a  "  thrice  dipping  of  the  head.' '  Augustine 
mentions  the  same.     (Pond,  p.  46.) 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  99 

oil.  They  went  further.  Not  content  with 
being  literally  buried  in  the  waters,  they  im- 
bibed another  notion  from  "  putting  off  the 
old  man,"  and  also  from  the  nakedness  of 
Christ  on  the  cross  : — (for  the  same  passage 
which  speaks  of  being  buried  with  Christ 
speaks  of  the  old  man  being  crucified  ^yith 
Christ :)  and  they  baptized  all  naked  :  men, 
women,  youths,  children,  all  alike  actually 
naked,  divested  of  all  clothing !  Truly, 
"  Baptisteries"  were  necessary  at  that  pe- 
riod :  and  he  would  not  be  wide  from  the 
mark  who  should  see  here  a  reason  for  their 
invention,  to  remedy  the  indecencies  of  the 
scene  ;  but  from  the  beorinninar  it  was  not 
so.  For  authority  as  to  this  fact  I  refer  to 
Dr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  to 
Dr.  Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  105.  Wall  says, 
"  The  ancient  Christians,  when  they  were 
baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  baptized 
naked,  whether  they  were  men,  women,  or 
children."  Dr.  Miller  adds,  "  We  have  the 
same  evidence  (to  wit,  from  history)  in  fa- 
vor of  immersing  divested  of  all  clothing, 
that  we  have  for  immersion  at  all,"  and  that 
"  so  far  as  the  history  of  the  Church  subse- 
quent to  the  Apostolic  age  informs  us,  these 
must  stand  or  fall  together." 


100  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  argument  from  history,  therefore, 
proves  nothing  pertinent  to  the  determining 
of  the  question,  or  it  proves  altogether  too 
much.  It  cannot  weigh  against  the  word 
of  God,  and  the  suitable  exposition  of  the 
law  of  baptism  as  instituted  by  Christ. 

But  here  justice  requires  that  I  go  a  little 
further.  A  tract  entitled  "  A  Familiar  Dia- 
logue between  Peter  and  Benjamin  on  the  sub- 
ject of  communion,''^  has  been  extensively 
circulated  here,  and  all  around  in  the  region, 
and,  as  appears,  extensively  through  the 
country.  On  the  first  page  of  this  tract  we 
have  the  following  sentence  :  "  As  late  as 
1643,  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  West- 
minster, sprinkling  was  substituted  for  im- 
mersion by  a  majority  of  one — 25  voted  for 
sprinkling,  24  for  immersion.  This  small 
majority  was  obtained  by  the  earnest  re- 
quest of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired 
great  influence  in  that  Assembly." 

Now  all  this  is  told  for  truth.  It  is  told 
most  circumstantially  : — "  in  1643" — "  the 
Assembly  of  Divines," — "  majority  of  o?ie," — 
"  24 for  immersion," — "  25  for  sprinkling," — 
"  by  the  earnest  request  of  Dr.  Lightfoot." 

Like  other  fictions,  this  fiction  is  founded 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


101 


on  fact,  but  it  is  not  the  truth.  There  was 
no  question  at  all  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines 
whether  sprinkling  was  proper.  That  was 
in  customary  use,  and  allowed  on  all  hands 
to  be  proper  ;  and  the  final  vote  of  the  As- 
sembly in  passing  the  "Directory  for  the 
worship  of  God,"  was  passed,  "  tvith  great 
unayiiinitij,''  and  that  Directory  has  these 
words:  "As  he  pronounceth  these  words 
he  is  to  baptize  the  child  with  water,  which, 
for  the  manner  of  doing  it,  is  not  only  law- 
ful^ but  sufficient,  and  most  expedient,  to  be 
by  pourmg  or  sprinkling  of  the  water  on 
the  face  of  the  child,  without  adding  any 
other  ceremony." 

But  what  about  the  "majority  of  one?^'' 
Dr.  ^Tiller  states  the  matter  thus  :  "  When 
the  committee  who  had  been  charged  with 
preparing  a  "  Directory  for  the  worship  of 
God,"  brought  in  their  report^  they  had  spok- 
en of  baptism  thus  :  "  It  is  lawful  and  suffi- 
cient to  sprinkle  the  child.'''*  To  this,  Dr. 
Lightfoot,  among,  others,  objected,  not  be- 
cause he  doubted  the  entire  sufficiency  of 
sprinkling  ;  for  he  decidedly  preferred 
sprinkling  to  immersion, — but  because  he 
thought  there  was  an  impropriety  in  pro- 
9* 


102  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

nouncing  that  mode  lawful  only,  when  no 
one  present  had  any  doubts  of  its  being  so. 
Others  seemed  to  think  that  by  saying:  no- 
thing about  dippings  that  mode  was  meant 
to  be  excluded,  as  not  a  lawful  mode.  This 
they  did  not  wish  to  pronounce.  When 
therefore,  the  clause  as  originally  reported 
was  put  to  vote  there  were  25  votes  in 
favor  of  it,  and  24?  against  it."* 

From  this  is  vamped  up  the  statement  in 
the  tract  j  and  the  statement  is  made  in 
such  a  connection  as  to  lead  people  to  un- 
derstand, that  "  immersion"  had  been  the 
common  mode,  and  the  Assembly  substitut- 
ed sprinkling  for  it.  There  was  no  such 
substitution,  either  in  fact,  or  even  so  much 
as  a  substitution  of  the  word  sprinkling  for 
the  word  immersion  in  the  Directory.  Dr. 
Miller  appears  to  be  amply  justified  when  he 
says, — "  The  common  statement  of  this  mat- 
ter by  our  own  Baptist  brethren  is  an  entire 
misrepresentation." 

That  those  who  print  and  circulate  this 
tract  know  its   statements  to  be  false,  I  can- 

*  Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  147.  He  refers  to  his  author- 
ities,  "  Lightfoot's  Life  by  Strype,"  Ncal'sHist.  of  the 
Puritans,!!,  pp.  106,  107. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  103 

not  affirm.  That  its  statements  are  grossly- 
untrue,  may  be  seen  by  a  bare  reference  to 
dates,  which  every  school  boy  ought  to 
know. 

The  tivie  when  the  sprinkling  was  said  to 
be  substituted  for  immersion  was  the  year 
1643.  Twenty  three  years  before  this,  our 
Pilgrim  Fathers  landed  at  Plymouth  ;  and  if 
immersion  had  been  the  common  practice  in 
England  they  would  have  brought  it  with 
them.  But  the  fact  was  so  far  from  this, 
that  sixteen  years  after,  Roger  Williams, 
removed  from  Massachusetts  to  Providence, 
and  continued  a  Peedo-baptist  for  three 
years  longer.  When  at  length  he  turned 
Baptist,  as  Mr.  Hague,  the  present  minister 
of  the  original  Roger  Williams  Church  in  Pro- 
vidence, says,  in  his  "  Historical  Discourse," 
— (and  as  is  narrated  in  the  '  Life  of  Roger 
Williams') — "  The  difficulty  that  arose  was 
the  want  of  a  proper  administrator:  for  at  that 
time,  no  ordained  minister  could  he  found  in 
America  who  had  been  immersed  on  a  profession 
of  faith.''''*  And  yet  there  were  many  aged 
ministers  in  America,  who  had  long  been 
ministers  in  Old  England  before  they  came 
*  Hague's  Historical  Discourse,  1S40,  p.  27. 


104  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

across  the  waters  !  A  Mr.  Ezekiel  Hari- 
man,  a  layman,  first  immersed  Mr.  Williams, 
and  then  Mr.  Williams  immersed  the  rest. 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  Baptists  in 
America.* 

So  again,  Richard  Blount^  in  the  reign  of 
King  Charles  II.  went  from  England  to  the 
Netherlands  to  be  immersed,  because  he 
deemed  it  could  not  suitably  be  done  in 
England  ;  and  when  he  returned,  he  immers- 
ed the  Rev.  Samuel  Blackstock,  and  these 
two  immersed  the  rest  of  a  number  who 
wished  to  become  a  Baptist  Church,  on 
what  they  deemed  the  proper  foundation  j 
to  wit,  an  authorized  ministry  and  an 
authorized  baptism.  Could  this  have  hap- 
pened had  sprinkling  been  substituted  for 
immersion  only  a  few  years  before,  and 
that  by  a  majority  of  only  one  in  an  Assem- 
bly of  the  leading  Divines  of  England  ?t 

*  Mr.  Williams  soon  after  left  the  Baptists  and  turn- 
ed Seeker. 

t  There  were  at  this  time  some  few  Baptists  in  Eng- 
land,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  any  were  in  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines. 

Dr.  Murdock  (on  Mosheim  Vol.  III.)  says,  "  The  first 
regxdar  congregation  of  English  Baptists,  appears  to  have 
originated  from  certain  English  Puritans,  who  return- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  105 

From  these  facts  alone  any  one  may  see 
that  it  cannot  possibly  be  true,  that  immer- 
sion had  been  the  common  mode  of  baptism 
in  England  up  to  IG^'S,  and  that  sprinkling 
was  then  substituted  for  it,  on  the  authority 
of  the  Assembly  of  Divines.* 
ed   from  Holland  after  the  death  of  their  Pastor,  Rev* 
John  Smith,  who  died  in  1610." — "  From  this  time  on- 
ward, churches  of  General  Baptists  were    formed  here 
and  there  in  different  parts  of  England.    But.  in  gener. 
al,  thay  made  no  great   figure,  and  do   not  appear  to 
have  had  much  connection,  or  to   have  professed  one 
uniform   faith."     "  The  Particular  Baptists'  (Calvinis, 
tic)  trace   their  origin  to  a  congregation  of  Independ. 
entSy  established   ih  London   in  1616.     This   congre- 
gation having    become   very  large,  and  some  of  them 
differing  from  the  others  on  the  subject  of  infant  bap- 
tism, they  agreed   to  divide.      Those  who   disbelieved 
in    infant  baptism   were    regularly  dismissed,  in  1633, 
and  formed  into  a  new  church  under  Rev.  John  Spils' 
bury.      And  in  1639  a  new  Baptist  church  was  form- 
ed.     Churches  of  Particular  Baptists    now   multiplied 
rapidly."     They    published  a  confession  of  their  faith 
in  1643,  (pubhshed  by  the  seven  churches  of  London,) 
"  which  was  reprinted  in  1644,  and  l646,  and  which 
was  revised  in   1689,  by  a  convention  of  elders   and 
delegates  from  more   than   one   hundred  churches  of 
England  and  Wales."  Murdock's  Mosheim,  Vol.  IILpp. 
540,  541. 

*  With  about  as  much  reason  it  is  elsewhere  asserted 
that  sprinkling  was  substituted  for  immersion  by  the 
authority  of  the  Pope,  in  1311. J 


106  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

When  this  tract  first  fell  into  my  hands, 
I  looked  at  it  with  astonishment  ;  and  con- 
cluded that  it  was  some  stray  print,  publish- 
ed by  some  ignorant  and  irresponsible  man, 
a  work  which  nobody  would  be  willing  to 
acknowledge.  But  on  turning  to  the  title 
page,  I  see  it  printed  at  the  bottom  in 
staring  capitals  5  —  "  Philadelphia  :  Baptist 
General  Tract  Society.  No.  21  South  ith 
Street:' 

I  need  not  pursue  this  matter  further  :  nor 
indeed  was  it  essential  to  advert  to  it  at  all. 
If  we  should  grant  every  thing  from  eccle- 
siastical history  which  any  desire  to  assume, 
it  would  bear  nothing  on  the  question. 
Christianity  in  the  hands  of  men  may  be- 
come corrupt : — it  did  early  become  corrupt. 
The  word  of  God  is  the,  pure  fountain 
What  instructions  may  be  gathered  there  ? 
To  the  law,  to  the  testimony.  History  shows 
that  immersion  was  not  at  any  time  consid- 
ered by  the  ancient  church  as  essential  to 
baptism :  and  if  the  ancient  church  had 
thought  it  essential,  still  we  have  no  author- 
ity for  making  that  essential  which  was  not 
deemed  so  by  the  apostles  and  the  word  of 
God.     I  return  to  the  argument. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  107 

3.  On  ike  supposition  that  the  early  "  disci- 
ples always  baptized  by  immersion,  is  there 
evidence  that  they  considered  that  mode  essen- 
tial r 

Suppose  the  command  had  been,  "Lei 
every  believer  go  down  from  Jerusalem  to 
Jericho.^''  Suppose  that  the  Savior  and  his 
early  disciples  all  went  by  one  particular 
way,  and  always  rode  on  ass  colts.  Must  we 
always  go  in  that  road  1  Must  we  always 
ride  on  ass  colts  ] — or  is  it  essential  wheth- 
er we  ride  at  all  1  Certainly  not.  We  are 
commanded  to  go  down  from  Jerusalem  to 
Jericho,  and  this  we  must  do.  But  to  go 
in  any  particular  road  ;  or  to  ride  ;  or  to 
walk  ;  is  no  part  of  the  command.  The 
thing  is  required,  the  mode  is  not  a  matter  of 
command.*     He  usurps  the  prerogative  of 

*  Thus,  we  must  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  with 
bread  and  wine.  But  Christ  and  the  apostles  first 
celebrated  it  under  the  following  circumstances,  in 
which  nobody  deems  it  essential  to  follow  them.  1.  It 
was  at  night.  2.  In  an  tipper  room.  3.  They  used 
unleavened  bread.  4.  They  partook  in  a  reclining 
posture.  5.  After  eating  a  meal.  6.  With  no  female 
desciples  present.  To  my  mind  there  appears  just  as 
much  reason  for  insisting  on  the  rnode  of  baptism,  as 
for  insisting  on  the  observance  of  these  six  particulars 
in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  no  more. 


108  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

Christ,  who  makes   any  particular  road^  or 
any  particular  mode  of  going,  essential. 

So  here ;  we  are  to  be  baptized,  and 
simply  baptized.  But  I  have  shown  that  the 
words  "  baptize"  and  '•  baptism"  were  in 
common  use  among  the  Jews  at  that  time 
to  denote  a  ritual  purification  by  sprinkling 
or  pouring :  possibly  also  they  were  in  use 
to  denote  a  ritual  purification  by  immersion, 
though  this  lacks  proof;  and  were  it  indubita- 
bly proved,  still  the  only  efl^ect  would  be  to 
show  that  there  are  three  authorized  modes 
of  baptizing  instead  of  two  ;  and  the  argu- 
ment would  be  the  stronger  that  the  mode 
is  not  essential.  In  this  state  of  the  case, 
suppose  Christ  and  his  disciples  had  all  been 
baptized  by  sprinkling.  This  does  not  bind 
us  to  be  baptized  in  that  mode.  Had  they 
all  been  baptized  by  immersion,  it  would 
not  bind  us  to  an  immersion.  Here  are 
several  modes  of  applymg  water,  all  called 
equally  baptism.  Our  Lord  commands  us 
to  be  baptized  :  the  particular  mode  he  does 
not  designate.  How  can  we  tell  that  he  did 
not,  for  the  most  consequential  reasons,  leave 
it  indeterminate  1  If  we  add  the  mode  to 
the  command,  we  add  to  the  law  of  Christ- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  109 

But  here  it  may  be  replied,  "  Is  there  not 
ONE  faith,  ONE  Lord,  one  baptisivi  V  Indeed, 
it  is  much  insisted  by  our  Baptist  brethren 
that  the  unity  of  baptism  consists  in  unity  of 
mode;  and  that  three  modes,  sprinkling", 
pouring,  immersing, — make  three  baptisms. 

I  might  here  be  entitled  to  insist,  that  if 
the  unity  of  baptism  consists  in  unity  of 
mode,  then  the  mode  of  immersion  is  most 
certainly  excluded  ;  for  sprinkling  has  been 
proved  a  lawful  mode  ;  and  pourings  by  its 
superior  proof,  comes  in  with  a  better  title 
than  immersion,  even  if  sprinkling  were 
given  up. 

But  the  unity  of  baptism  does  not  consist 
in  the  unity  of  mode  ;  but  in  the  unity  of  de- 
sign^ the  unity  of  signification,  unity  with 
regard  to  the  great  truths  to  which  it  refers ; 
unity  in  the  "  one  body  into  which  we  are 
all  baptized  by  the  same  Spirit."  The  Bible 
unequivocally  teaches  us  that  the  one  hap- 
tism  does  not  consist  in  the  one  mode.  Turn 
to  Acts  xix.  Certain  disciples  had  been  ig- 
norantly  baptized  with  John's  baptism,  in- 
stead of  the  baptism  which  Christ  enjoined, 
and  were  baptized  over  again.  I  am  aware 
that  many  of  our  Baptist  brethren  think  it 
10 


110  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

necessary  to  insist  that  there  was  no  re-bap- 
tism  :  and  it  is  scarce  a  wonder  ;  because 
if  there  was  here  a  re-baptism  it  effectually 
shows  that  John's  baptism  and  Christian 
baptism  are  entirely  distinct  ;  and  spoils 
many  arguments  founded  on  the  notion  that 
the  baptisms  are  the  same.  Thus,  in  the 
Tract  which  has  already  been  quoted, — the 
"  Familiar  Dialogue  between  Peter  and  Ben- 
jamin," published  by  the  "  Baptist  General 
Tract  Society,"  (p.  5.)  Peter  is  made  to  say 
in  the  dialogue, — "  I  have  been  a  little  puz- 
zled with  the  account  given  in  Acts  xix.  1-6, 
respecting  the  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at 
Ephesus.  Do  you  think  they  were  re-baptized  V 
Benjamin  is  made  to  answer  : — "  By  no 
mea?is,^^  and  I  think  I  can  relieve  your  mind 
in  few  words:"  and  then  goes  on  to  argue 
that  there  was  no  re-baptism.  I  only  won- 
der that  a  cause,  which  requires  so  plain  a 
statement  of  Scripture  to  be  denied,  should 
be  thought  worth  defending.  The  words  of 
the  Scripture  are  these  :  "  And  he  said  unto 
them,  unlo  what  were  ye  then  baptized  ?  And 
they  saidy  unto  JohrHs  baptism.  Then  said 
Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism 
of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that 


MODE  OF  BAPTIS:\I.  Ill 

they  should  believe  on  him  which  should 
come  after  hitn ;  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And  when  Paul 
had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy- 
Ghost  came  on  them." 

Hard  lot,  indeed,  to  be  driven  to  deny 
that  here  was  a  re-baptism,  and  yet  to  hold 
on  to  the  scheme  that  requires  such  a  denial  ! 

But  mark  :  here  were  two  baptisms,  while 
doubtless  there  was  but  one  mode.  Unity 
of  mode,  therefore,  does  not  make  unity  of  bap- 
tism ;  AXD  UNITY  OF  BAPTISM  DOES  NOT  CON- 
SIST IN  THE  MODE ;  it  lics  in  something  else. 
Here  the  mode  was  good  enough ;  but  the 
design,  the  intent,  the  truths  on  the  faith  of 
which  the  baptism  was  based  were  different. 
These  made  the  two  transactions  in  one 
mode,  two  baptisms.  The  "  one  baptism," 
therefore,  consists  in  the  one  design,  the  one 
signification,  the  unity  of  faith  in  the  same 
truths,  which  are  represented  by  baptism  ; 
and  ONENESS  in  these  things  would  make  one 
BAPTISM,  though  the  mere  outward  modes 
should  vary  ever  so  much  ;  and  the  mode  is 
not  essential.  To  make  the  unity  of  bap- 
tism consist  in  the  mode,  is,  as  if  we  were  to 


112  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

make  a  man's  identity  consist  in  his  dress  : 
he  is  one  man  in  a  coat  with  broad  skirts  ;  he  is 
quite  another  man  and  has  lost  all  his  legal 
and  social  and  personal  identity  in  a  coat 
with  narrow  skirts.  And  mark  still  further 
here  : — in  the  main  particulars, — the  es- 
sentials,— of  the  baptism  with  which  Christ 
was  baptized,  we  are  not  to  follow  him ;  and 
so  another  set  of  arguments  and  of  strong 
appeals  falls  to  the  ground. 

He  was  not  baptized  till  thirty  years  oldj 
and  that  for  a  special  reason.  We  are  not 
to  follow  him  here. 

He  was  not  baptized  "  unto  repentance^ 
John^s  disciples  could  not  follow  him  here. 

He  was  not  baptized  to  "  wash  away  sins.'''' 
No  man  can  follow^  him  bere. 

He  was  not  baptized  in  the  "  name  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.''''  No  man  is  to 
follow  him  here. 

He  was  baptized  as  an  introduction  to  his 
'perpetual  priesthood.  No  man  is  to  follow 
him  here. 

In  fine:  according  to  the  word  of  God,  if 
we  had  been  baptized  with  John's  baptism 
ever  so  ceremoniously  ;  in  order  to  Chris- 
tian baptism  we  must  needs  be  baptized  over 
again. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  113 

I  go  on  with  the  argument.  Now  our 
Lord  commanded  us  simply  to  be  baptized  : 
and  there  being  in  common  use  two  (or  if 
we  grant  our  Baptist  brethren  what  we  do 
not  desire  to  deny,  but  what  they  cannot 
prove, — three)  modes  of  ritual  purifying 
called  baptism  ;  our  Lord  left  the  mode  in- 
determinate. How  can  we  tell  that  he 
did  not  with  deliberation  and  for  the  most 
consequential  reasons,  leave  it  indetermi- 
nate % 

Suppose,  you  make  the  mode  essential, 
and  insist  that  all  shall  be  immersed,  or 
barred  out  of  the  church.  How  can  you  tell 
that  you  are  not  presuming  to  require  what 
the  Lord  purposely  left  optional  for  the 
most  cogent  and  essential  reasons  ]  And 
if  so,  how  will  you  answer  it  to  God  for  at- 
tempting thus  to  judge  "  another  man's  ser- 
vant," and  to  "  lord  it  over  God's  heritage"] 
Suppose  that  Christ  forbore  to  enjoin  the 
particular  mode  of  immersion  for  this  rea- 
son :  to  wit — that  his  Gospel  is  designed 
to  fill  the  whole  earth,  and  to  be  applicable 
with  all  its  ordinances  to  all  men  every 
where    in    all    conditions.       But  there    are 

deserts^    where  men    may   travel    for   days 
10* 


114  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

and  not  find  water  enough  for  immersion. 
There  are  frozen  regions  where  immer- 
sion is  a  large  part  of  the  year  nearly  or 
quite  impracticable.  Many  are  sick  ;  many 
are  in  such  a  state  of  health  that  they  can- 
not go  abroad, — much  less  go  and  be  im- 
mersed,— especially  in  winter,  without  en- 
dangering their  lives.  Must  all  these  be 
kept  from  Christ's  ordinances,  because  some 
think  that  what  Christ  saw  fit,  (perhaps  for 
these  very  reasons  among  others)  not  to 
prescribe,  should  be  made  essential  1  Be- 
cause these  cannot  be  immersed,  are  they 
therefore  to  linger  and  die  without  ever 
partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  whatever 
their  desire  for  that  and  for  baptism  too  ? 
It  has  been  well  said,  that  "  baptism  was 
made  for  man,  not  man  for  baptism  ;"  and 
may  not  Christ  have  designedly  left  the 
mode  undetermined  for  such  reasons  as 
these  1  Is  there  no  presumption  in  adding 
the  mode  to  his  command  %  Or,  waiving 
these  considerations,  and  supposing  that,  in 
Judea,  immersion  might  always  have  been 
readily  practised  on  account  of  the  com- 
parative mildness  of  the  climate  ',  and  grant- 
ing, moreover,  that  nobody  was   ever  sick 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM^.  1  15 

there  ;  can  we  be  sure  that  it  is  entirely  in 
keeping  with  the  simplicity  of  Christ,  and 
with  the  lightness  and  simplicity  of  his  or- 
dinances, to — cut  a  hole  in  the  ice  and  im- 
merse sixty  men  and  women,  while  the 
weather  is  so  cold  as  to  keep  a  number  of 
men  employed  in  stirring  the  water  with 
poles  to  keep  it  from  freezing  over  while 
the  immersion  is  going  on  1 — as  the  papers 
have  informed  us  was  done  in  the  Delaware 
river  the  last  winter.  Since  Christ  has  not 
commanded  this,  nor  required  baptism  to  be 
done  in  the  mode  of  immersion  at  all,  how 
can  we  dare  to  add  such  doings  as  these  to 
his  gentle  and  easy  commands? 

We  cannot.  We  dare  not.  And  yet  for 
this  we  must  be  cut  off  from  communion 
with  those  whom  we  love  as  brethren.  We 
see  no  scriptural  evidence  for  the  peculiar 
mode  of  immersion  :  but  we  leave  our  breth- 
ren to  decide  for  themselves  according  to 
their  conscience.  We  have  conscientiously 
intended  to  obey  the  command  to  be  bap- 
tized. We  think  we  have  obeyed  it.  But 
our  brethren  judge  over  our  consciences  and 
would  thrust  us  from  the  church,  unless  we 
will   submit  our  judgment   and    our    con- 


116  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

science  to  theirs.  They  often  say  to  us, 
"  since  you  regard  immersion  as  valid  bap- 
tism you  ought  to  come  to  us  since  we  can- 
not in  conscience  come  to  you."  We  re- 
ply, Brethren,  can  you  not  allow  us  liberty  of 
conscience  too  1  Can  you  not  receive  us 
without  stripping  us  of  our  dearest  rights  1 
We  are  ready  to  allow  and  give  immersion 
to  them  ;  but  we  demand  liberty  of  con- 
science too.  We  are  required  to  come 
under  a  yoke  which  we  are  confident  Christ 
never  imposed.  We  are  required  to  do  that 
which  we  consider  as  adding  to  Christ's  com- 
mands ;  thrusting  out  many  from  his  ordi- 
nances ;  and  compelling  many  more  to  en- 
joy them  at  the  risk  of  their  lives.  Nay, 
if  we  would  yield  our  own  consciences  and 
surrender  our  own  liberty,  they  would  then 
compel  us,  in  the  same  manner,  to  lord 
it  over  the  consciences  of  others  ;  or  in  de- 
fault, cast  us  out  of  the  church  ;  and  so  if 
the  Baptist  were  the  only  church, — all  those 
whose  earnest  research  and  whose  honest 
conscience  should  not  lead  them  to  see  im- 
mersion, and  only  immersion,  in  all  the  bap- 
tisms of  the  New  Testament,  must  be  de- 
barred from  Christ's  house  on  earth,  and  ex- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  117 

communicate  from  his  table  !  And  every 
one  who  will  consent  to  join  them  is,  per- 
force, compelled  to  join  in  this  unhallowed 
proscription  of  the  children  of  God  and 
heirs  of  salvation  j  and  that  under  penalty 
of  discipline  and  censure  even  to  excommu- 
nication !  A  man  may  not  commune  at 
Christ's  table,  even  with  his  own  father,  or 
with  the  wife  of  his  bosom,  be  they  ever  so 
faithful  to  Christ  ;  if  they  are  so  unfortunate 
as  not  to  see  immersion  in  baptism,  and 
have  been  baptized  in  any  other  mode  !  No — 
every  thing  must  be  squared  to  their  under- 
standing, and  cut  according  to  their  opinion. 
The  wife  shall  be  debarred  from  partaking 
of  the  emblems  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Savior  in  connection  with  her  dying  hus- 
band, who  desires  once  more,  before  he  de- 
parts, to  commemorate  a  Savior's  love  !  We 
feel  not  at  liberty  to  countenance  such  a 
ruthless  despotism  as  this.  Could  we  sur- 
render our  own  liberty,  we  have  yet  some 
conscience  left,  which  forbids  us  to  lend  our 
aid  in  tyrannizing  over  the  consciences  of 
others.  Had  we  personally  no  objection  to 
immersion,  we  should  feel  bound,  for  free- 
dom's sake,    for   the    truth's   sake,  and   for 


118  MODE  OF   BAPTISM. 

Christ's  sake,  to  "  stand  fast  in  that  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free."  We 
are  not  willing  to  be  made  the  instruments 
of  destroying  the  liberty  of  others.  As  we 
love  Christ  we  dare  not  be  brought  under 
such  a  "  yoke  of  bondage  to  any  man."  As 
we  love  God  or  regard  the  rights  of  men, 
we  dare  not  join  in  this  unhallowed  lording 
it  over  the  consciences  of  others.  We  re- 
member that  it  is  written,  "  Who  art  thou, 
that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  To 
his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth."  We 
leave  it  to  every  man's  conscience  to  de- 
cide whether  he  has  been  baptized,  and 
when  satisfied  that  according  to  his  own 
understanding  and  his  own  conscience  he 
has  obeyed  the  command  to  be  baptized,  we 
dare  not  judge  over  him.  On  the  customary 
tokens  of  piety,  and  on  the  customary  pro- 
fession,— as  that  custom  exists  in  churches 
of  any  other  evangelical  denomination,  we  re- 
ceive him,  and  with  open  arms,  to  our  com- 
munion, and  to  that  table  which  is  not  ours 
but  the  Lord's.* 

But,  when   we  have  seen  on  what  ground 

*  "There  was  at  that  time,  (1689),  several  churches 

of  Calvinistic  Baptists,  who  held  to  open  communion. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  11.9 

exclusive  immersion  is  required  ;  when, — 
as  we  are  required  to  prove  all  things, — 
we  prove  it  by  the  word  of  God ; — and  in 
our  sober  judgment,  its  very  foundations 
flit  away  "  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a 
vision  j"  how  can  we  on  such  grounds  join 
in  unchurching  and  cutting  off  from  the  com- 

especiallyin  Bedfordshire,  where  John  Bunyan  preach- 
ed."     (Murdock's  Mosheim,  Vol.  III.  p.  540.) 

''  Before  the  erection  of  regular  Baptist  congrega- 
tions, and  indeed  for  some  time  after,  it  was  very  com- 
mon for  Baptists  and  others  to  belong  to  the  same 
church,  and  to  worship  and  commune  together." 
(Ibid.  p.  541.) 

The  celebrated  Robert  Hall  was  most  strenuously 
opposed  to  close  communion. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  saying  that  they 
hold  to  no  more  close  communion  than  we  do.  Will 
they  put  it  to  the  test  ?  Will  they  receive  to  their  com- 
munion every  person  who  has,  on  a  credible  profession 
of  piety,  been  received  to  some  evangelical  church  of 
another  denomination,  and  who,  "  according  to  his 
OWN  understanding  and  his  own  conscience,  has  obey- 
ed the   command  to  be  baptized  ?" 

We  give  the  following  invitation  before  the  com- 
munion :  "  Members  of  other  churches  present,  of  all 
evangelical  denominations,  in  regular  standing  in  their 
own  churches,  are  invited  to  partake  with  us."'  If  our 
Baptist  brethren  hold  to  no  more  close  communion 
than  we,  will  they  adopt  this  form  ?  If  not,  will  they 
give  up  their  assertion  as  fallacious  and  untrue. 


120  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

munion  of  the  saints  so  many  others,  who, 
we  cannot  doubt,  are  received  of  God  1  No, 
we  have  not  so  learned  Christ.  We  have 
gone  to  His  word  for  our  views  of  truth  and 
order.  On  that  we  rest.  Leaving  it  to 
others  to  answer  their  own  conscience,  and 
to  enjoy  their  belief  without  let  or  molesta- 
tion from  us,  on  the  ground  which  we  have 
examined  and  proved  we  stand  fast.  If  our 
views  of  faith  and  order  should  be  assailed, 
we  shall  nevertheless  remember,  that  we 
have  examined  and  proved  them  j — and, 
with  much  prayer  and  with  solemn  and  full 
conviction,  have  found  that  they  rest  broadly 
and  solidly  upon  the  eternal  word  of  God. 


III. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

SCRIPTURAL    AUTHORITY. 


MATTHEW    XXVIII  19. 

Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


There  are  two  questions  with  regard  to 
baptism,  on  which  evangelical  Christians 
are  divided ;  one  respecting  the  mode^  and 
the  other  respecting  the  subjects.  These 
two  questions  are  entirely  distinct.  There 
is  no  reason  why  those  who  differ  concern- 
ing one  might  not  agree  concerning  the 
other. 

Between  us  and  our  Baptist  brethren  there 
is  no  difference  of  opinion  concerning  the 
subjects  of  baptism,  except  concerning  in- 
fants.    We  agree  that  adzdts   are  not  to  be 

n 


122  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

baptized,  save  on  a  creditable  profession  of 
evangelical  faith  and  repentance.  The  ques- 
tion concerning  the  subjects  is  therefore 
limited  to  this  single  inquiry  :  Are  the  infant 
children  of  believing  parents  to  he  baptized  ? 

The  law  of  the  institution  makes  no  ex- 
press mention  of  infants.  It  is  therefore 
contended    that  this   is    conclusive    aorainst 

o 

infant  baptism  \  as  in  a  positive  institution 
we  are  to  go  by  the  letter  of  the  law ;  and 
all  beyond  this,  as  well  as  every  thing  short 
of  this,  is  wrong. 

1  humbly  conceive,  however,  that  Christ 
has  a  right  to  make  known  his  will,  in  this 
or  in  any  other  matter,  in  just  such  a  way 
as  he  pleases  ; — that  the  incidental  recogni- 
tion, by  the  apostles,  of  infants  as  properly 
embraced  in  the  intent  of  that  law,  or  their 
actual  practice  of  baptizing  infants,  would  be 
an  authoritative  interpretation  of  the  law,  as 
extending  its  provisions  to  infants.  And  we 
deceive  ourselves  ;  we  undertake  to  correct 
the  widom  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  we 
are  guilty  of  disobedience  to  his  authority; 
if,  in  such  a  case,  we  allow  any  notions  or 
arguments  about  a  "  positive  institution"  to 
lead  us  to  act   in  opposition  to  the  will  of 


I^'FANT  BAPTISM.  123 

Christ,  no  less  truly  made  known  than 
if  the  warrant  had  expressed  infants  by- 
name. The  question  is  not,  Jire  infants  ex- 
jpressly  named  ?  but,  Has  Christ  any  where, 
and  in  any  icay,  instructed  us  whether  they 
are  to  he  embraced  or  excluded  ? 

On  this  principle  our  Baptist  brethren 
themselves  argue  and  practice  in  other  mat- 
ters ;  and  that,  too,  in  matters  pertaining  to 
^^  positive  institutions^  Indeed,  any  other 
principle  than  this  would  shut  out  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  from  being  master  and  lawgiver 
over  his  own  house.  Who  are  we,  to  pre- 
scribe to  hira  how  he  is  to  make  known  his 
will  ;  and  that  under  penalty  of  having  his 
will  rejected,  if  he  does  not  make  it  known 
in  just  the  manner  that  we  think  he  ought  to 
employ  1 

The  Sabbath  is  a  positive  institution  j  and 
God  has  expressly  designated  the  seventh 
day,  yet  all  Christians  in  the  world,  that  keep 
a  Sabbath, — save  a  very  diminutive  fraction  of 
one  sect, —  keep  the^rs^day.  Where  is  the 
express  warrant  for  this  change  1  There  is 
none.  Our  Baptist  brethren,  like  ourselves, 
make  out  a  warrant  by  inference.  We  find  the 
will  of  Christ  made  known  in  the  Scriptures, 


124  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

— not  expressly  but  circumstantially.  The 
practice  of  the  Apostles  teaches  the  will  of 
Christ, — even  though  it  be  but  incidentally- 
mentioned.  We  admit  the  validity  of  this 
warrant  by  inference.  If  truly  made  out,  it 
is  as  clearly  the  will  of  Christ  as  though  we 
had  found  an  express  warrant  in  so  many 
words,  "  Let  the  Sabbath  be  changed  from 
the  seventh  day  to  the  first." 

The  "  Seventh  Day  BapHsts^^  are  the  only 
consistent  ones  here.  They  do  with  the 
Sabbath  as  they  do  by  infant  baptism  ;  they 
admit  nothing  but  an  express  warrant,  in  so 
many  words,  to  bear  upon  either  question. 
"  And,"  said  one  of  their  ministers  to  me, 
* '  we  feel  that  with  our  Baptist  brethren  our 
arguments  are  unanswerable.  They  must  either 
keep  the  seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath,  or  else 
reject  the  very  principles  on  which  they  reject 
infant  baptism  ;  they  must  give  up  their  argu- 
ment, or  keep  the  seventh  day,  or  else  determine 
to  act  inconsistently  and  absurdly.'''' 

His  conclusion  was  manifestly  sound. 
And  I  could  not  help  adding,  Both  they  and 
you  must  give  w^ female  communion  too  :  for 
when  Christ  instituted  his  Supper  there  were 
no  female  disciples  present,  though  he  had 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  125 

such  at  the  time  ;  and  he  said  not  one  word 
about  them  in  the  law  of  the  ordinance  : 
nor  are  they  any  where  expressly  mentioned 
as  partaking  in  the  celebration  of  the  ordi- 
nance ;  and  yet  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  pure 
''^positive  institution^''^  and  say  our  brethren, 
You  must  go  by  the  letter  ;  you  must  not  go 
beyond  j  you  must  not  make  out  a  warrant 
by  inference  j  you  must  have  it  express. 

I  know  they  prove  the  propriety  of  female 
communion  ;  but  they  prove  it  by  inference, 
and  not  by  any  express  command  or  precept. 
I  admit  the  proof  to  be  valid  :  but  neither 
our  Baptist  brethren  nor  any  body  else  can 
make  it  out,  without  at  the  same  time  sweep- 
ing away  the  very  foundation  of  their  argu- 
ment against  infant  baptism. 

I  only  insist  that  the  same  sort  of  proof  h^ 
considered  equally  valid  to  prove  the  autho- 
rity for  infant  baptism.  I  am  willing  to  have 
it  required  that  that  proof  be  ample.  I  have 
no  fear  for  the  issue,  if  the  condition  of  re- 
ceiving infant  baptism  be  ten  times  the 
amount  of  proof  required  to  substantiate  the 
change  of  the  Sabbath,  or  to  make  out  the 
Scriptural  warrant  for  female  communion. 
11* 


126  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

You  perceive  that  I  have  here  made  a 
"  concession  ;"  if  it  be  proper  to  call  that  a 
concession,  which  concerns  a  thing  that  we 
never  attempted  to  hold ;  and  which  is  a 
simple  statement  of  a  truth  that  every  Psedo- 
baptist  in  the  world  was  always  free  to 
acknowledge.  The  "  concession"  is,  that 
the  law  of  baptism  makes  no  express  men- 
tion of  infants. 

But  having  made  this  concession,  I  must 
be  allowed  to  enter  my  protest  against  being 
understood  or  reported  to  have  conceded 
that  the  Scriptures  furnish  no  warrant  for 
infant  baptism.  I  concede  no  such  thing.  I 
maintain  the  contrary.  Nor  will  it  be  deem- 
ed a  matter  of  wonder  to  those  who  know 
what  use  is  sometimes  made  of  concessions, 
that  I  should  deem  it  necessary  to  enter 
this  protest. 

Thus,  a  concession  of  Dr.  Woods  is  some- 
times quoted  in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  those, 
who  hear  it,  under  the  impression,  that  Dr. 
Woods  admits  that  the  Scriptures  furnish 
no    warrant  for    infant  baptism.*       So   far 

*  The  writer  has  himself  heard  Dr.  Woods  quoted 
in  this  manner  before  a  full  congregation. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  127 

as  his  words  are  quoted,  they  are  quoted 
correctly  from  p.  11,  of  his  work  on  Infant 
Baptism,  "  Whatever  may  have  been  the  pre- 
cepts  of  Christ  or  his  apostles,  to  those  who 
enjoyed  their  personal  instructions  ;  it  is  a 
plain  case,  that  there  is  no  express  precept 
respecting  infant  baptism  in  our  sacred  writ- 
ings." 

Here  the  matter  is  left.  The  quotation 
is  truth  as  far  as  it  goes :  but  what  is  essen- 
tial to  THE  truth  is  omitted  ;  and  the  omission 
causes  Dr.  Woods  to  be  understood  as  giv- 
ing up  all  claim  of  a  Scriptural  warrant  for 
infant  baptism  5  whereas,  in  truth,  Dr.  Woods 
gives  his  testimony  directly  to  the  contrary. 
His  "  concession''^  refers  only  to  an  "  express 
precept."  His  work  was  written  for  the 
very  purpose  of  proving  the  Scriptural 
WARRANT  for  infant  baptism.  He  is  very 
explicit,  (p.  42),  to  take  his  position  in  the 
most  formal  words ;  and  he  prints  them  in 
italics  that  his  position  may  be  well  noted 
and  understood  ;  and  these  are  his  words  : 

"  But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  argue  the 
point  from  the  inspired  records  just  as  they 
are.  My  position  is,  that  the  Scriptures  of 
the  J^ew  Testament^  understood  according  to 


128  INFANT  BAPTISM, 

the  just   rules  of  interpretation^  imply  that 

THE  CHILDREN  OF  BELIEVERS  ARE  TO  BE  BAP- 
TIZED." 

In  the  same  manner,  in  a  tract  published 
by  the  "  General  Baptist  Tract  Society^''  enti- 
tled "  The  Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism,  by 
Pengilly,'"  and  widely  circulated  both  here 
and  elsewhere,  Mr.  Baxter  is  introduced  as 
speaking  in  the  strongest  terms  against  In- 
fant Baptism.  One  long  quotation  from  his 
writings  introduced  for  this  purpose,  ends 
with  these  words  :  "  I  profess  my  conscience 
is  fully  satisfied  from  this  text,  that  it  is  one 
sort  of  faith,  even  saving,  that  must  go  be- 
fore BAPTISM."  The  last  words  are  printed 
in  capitals.  Jewett,  in  his  work  on  Baptism, 
has  introduced  the  same  quotation  for  the 
same  purpose  ;  to  make  Richard  Baxter 
bear  his  witness  against  infant  baptism. 

And  again,  "  The  Scripture  Guide  to  Bap- 
tism, by  Pengilly,^^  (p.  44-),  after  asserting  in 
italics,  "  That  we  have  nowhere  found  a  single 
place  or  passage  that  describes,  records,  or  im. 
plies  the  baptism  of  any  infants  j^^  says, 
"  The  reader  will  not  suppose  this  a  hasty 
conclusion  when  he  hears  the  following  P^edo- 
baptists."       Under   this,   he   quotes   again 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  129 

Mr.  Baxter,  thus  :  "  I  conclude  that  all  ex- 
amples of  baptism  in  Scripture  do  mention 
only  the  administration  of  it  to  the  profess- 
ors of  saving  faith  :  and  the  precepts  give 
us  no  other  direction.  And  I  provoke  Mr. 
Blake  as  far  as  is  seemly  for  me  to  do,  to 
name  one  precept  or  example  for  any  other, 
and  make  it  good  if  he  can." 

Here  is  a  point  in  question,  and  witnesses 
are  called.  Richard  Baxter  is  brought  upon 
the  stand.  Mr.  Baxter^  Is  Infant  Baptism 
right  according  to  the  word  of  God  ?  An 
answer  is  put  into  his  mouth,  taken  from  his 
works,  in  which  he  is  reasoning — not  con- 
cerning infants, — but  concerning  adults  ;  and 
showing  that  "  it  is  one  sort  of  faith,  even 
saving^^^  (and  not  simply  the  intellectual  be- 
lief of  an  unconverted  man,)  "  that  must 
go  before  baptism."  And  so,  Richard  Bax- 
ter is  by  this  process  made  to  bear  witness 
against  Infant  Baptism ! 

But,  Mr.  Baxter,  you  were  a  Psedo-baptist : 
did  you  not  baptize  children,  and  so  teach 
and  exhort  in  the  house  of  God  \  0  yes  : 
and  dearly  prized  the  ordinance,  and  would 
not  have  given  it  up  sooner  than  I  would 
have  given  up   my  life.     But,  Mr.    Baxter, 


130  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

what  is  this  then  they  say  of  you  ^  Your 
name  is  spread  abroad  in  tracts  upon  tracts, 
and  in  books  upon  books,  and  goes  out  to  the 
four  wiads  of  heaven  ;  and  your  own  strong 
language  is  printed  in  the  boldest  relief,'as 
though  the  author  of  the  "  Saint's  Rest," 
and  of  the  "  Call  to  the  Unconverted,"  had 
borne  his  testimony  most  decidedly  against 
infant  baptism  !  Are  you  so  opposed,  Mr. 
Baxter  %  Is  this  witness  true  of  you  1 
What  say  you  of  Infants^  Mr.  Baxter  1  Do 
you  cut  these  off  from  the  Church  of  God? 

To  be  so  quoted  is  well  nigh  enough  to 
call  the  dead  "  Saint"  from  his  "  Rest."  He 
answers  on  this  point :  and  it  is  Baxter's 
own  strong  emotion  and  burning  words  that 
speak  :  "  God,"  says  Mr.  Baxter,  "  God  had 

NEVER  A  CHURCH  ON  EARTH,  OF   WHICH  INFANTS 

WERE  NOT  INFANT  MEMBERS,  SINCE  THERE  WERE 

INFANTS    IN    THE    WORLD."* 

'    *  Baxter's  Comment,  on  Matt.  28,  19,    (in  Gray  on 

the  Authority  for  Infant  Baptism,  Halifax,  1837,    p. 

200) 

The  hottest  controversy  which  Mr.  Baxter  ever 
had  was  with  the  Baptists.  A  Mr.  Tombes  had  written 
a  book  against  infant  baptism,  and  thought  that  Bax- 
ter was  "  the  chief  hinderer"  of  its  success  :  ''  Though," 
says  Mr.  Baxter,  "  I  never  meddled  witli  that  point." 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  131 

But  enough  of  these  "  concessions." 
Enough  of  these  clouds  of  quotations  from 
Psedo-baptist  writers  to  make  them  say  what, 
quoted  in  such  connections  and  for  such 
purposes,  is  heaven-wide  from  the  faith  in 
which  they  lived  and  in  which  they  died. 
Vrhat  is  done  to  the  living  Woods  and  to  the 
dead  Baxter,  is  done  to  Calvin,  and  to  a 
host  of  others.  These  men  went  to  the 
word  of  God  for  their  doctrine.  Whatever 
would  not  stand  by  that  rule  they  scrupu- 
lously rejected, — with  loathing  and  abhor- 

''  He  had,"  says  Baxter,  "  so  high  a  conceit  of  his 
writings  that  he  thought  them  unanswerable,  and  that 
none  could  deal  with  them  in  that  way."  "  At  last, 
somehow,  he  urged  me  to  give  ray  judgment  of  them  : 
when  I  let  him  know  they  did  not  satisfy  me  to  be  of 
his  mind,  but  went  no  further  with  him."  "But  he 
unavoidably  contrived  to  bring  me  into  the  controver- 
sy which  I  shunned."  In  the  end  Baxter  agreed  to 
hold  a  public  discussion  in  Mr.  Tombes'  church,  Jan. 
1,  1649.  "  This  dispute,"  says  Baxter,  "  satisfied  all 
my  own  people,  and  the  country  that  came  in,  and  Mr. 
Tombes'  own  townsmen,  except  about  twenty  whom 
he  had  perverted,  who  gathered  into  his  church  ; 
which  never  increased  to  above  twenty-two,  that  I 
could  learn." 

Not  long  after,  Baxter  published  his  work  entitled — 
"  Plain  Scripture  Proof  of  Infants'  Church  Mem- 


132  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

rence, — "hating  even  the  garment  spotted 
by  the  flesh."  They  taught  and  practised 
sprinkling  and  pouring  for  baptism  :  they 
taught  and  practised  the  baptism  of  infants  : 
— for  the  warrant  of  both  they  went  to  the 
word  of  God.  And  now,  the  influence  of 
their  names  and  the  weight  of  their  piety  is 
attempted  to  be  laid  into  the  scale  against 
the  doctrines  which  they  practised  and 
taught,  as  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  of 
God.  Is  this  dealing  kindly  and  truly  with 
the  dead  ?  Is  this  dealing  kindly  and  right- 
eously with  the  truth  % 

In  the  same  manner,  in  this  work  by 
"Pengilly,"  published  by  the  Baptist  Gen- 

BERSHiP  AND  Baptism."  This  work  passed  through 
several  editions.  ''  The  book,"  says  Baxter,  "  God 
blessed  with  unexpected  success  to  stop  abundance 
from  turning  Anabaptists,  and  reclaiming  many." 

Nineteen  years  after,  Baxter  published  another  work, 
entitled — More  Proofs  of  Infant  Church  Member- 
ship,    AND     consequently    THEIR    RiGHTS   TO    BaPTISM. 

This  book  is  divided  into  three  parts,  which  contain,  he 
tells  us,  "  The  plain  proof  of  God's  statute  or  covenant 
for  Infants'  church  membership  from  the  creation,  and 
the  continuance  of  it  till  the  institution  of  Baptism  : 
with  the  defence  of  that  proof  against  the  frivolous  ex- 
ceptions  of  Mr.  Tombes." — (Orwes'  Life  and  Times  of 
Baxter,  Vol.  II.  p.  252.) 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  133 

eral  Tract  Society,  as  the  "  Scripture  Guide 
to  Baptism,"  the  names  of  such  men  as 
Doddridge^  Baxter^  Erskine,  Matthew  Henry, 
Calvin,  Saurin,  Guyse,  Charnock,  are  arrayed 
as  if  against  us  in  the  particulars  in  which 
we  differ  from  our  Baptist  brethren.  Take 
the  names  from  the  book,  and  the  quotations 
annexed  to  them,  and  the  book  is  left  a  mere 
lifeless  carcase.  But  hear  them  fully  :  hear 
them  ti'uly  :  and  do  they  stand  against  us  \ 
Could  they  come  up  from  the  dead  into  the 
midst  of  this  community,  to  a  man  they  would 
wend  their  way  to  these  walls  for  the  truth 
and  order  which  they  held  as  established  by 
the  word  of  God.  To  a  man  they  would 
lift  up  their  voice  for  the  ordinances  which 
now  their  names  are  made  to  impugn.  They 
would  cry  out  upon  the  injustice  done  to 
their  memories  and  to  the  truth,  by  these 
attempts  to  cast  the  weight  of  their  names 
against  what  they  taught  and  practised,  as 
the  truth  and  the  ordinances  of  God.  And 
others,  whose  names  are  quoted  in  this  tract 
by  Pengilly,  though  they  might  not  in  all 
respects  agree  with  us  ;  would  nevertheless 
give  us  their  united  voice  on  the  matter  now 
in  question.  The  Methodists,  Whitefield 
12 


134  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

and  Wesley  ;  the  Episcopal  Scott  ;  the  Bish- 
ops of  the  Church  of  England,  Tillotson, 
Burnet^  and  Taylor,  and  Archbuhop  Seeker, 
would  cry  out  upon  the  injustice  done^to 
their  names  in  arraying  them,  as  if  witnesses, 
ao-ainst  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  which 
they  held  as  most  assuredly  the  truth  and 
the  ordinances  of  God. 

But  turn  from  the  authority  of  names,  to 
the  FOUNDATIONS  on  which  these  men  rested 
their  faith.  "  To  the  law  ;  and  to  the  testi- 
mony." 

In  our  examination  of  the  circumstances 
which  bear  upon  the  interpretation  of  the 
law  of  baptism,  it  will  appear, 

I.  That  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Chris- 
tian Church  are  one  and    the  same  ;  built 

ON  THE  same  covenant  ;  SAVED  WITH  THE 
same  faith  ;    AND  CONSIDERED  IN  THE    WORD  OF 

God  as  one  and  the  sabie  Church. 

II.  That  Circumcision   and  Baptism  are 

ALIKE  seals  of  THE  SAME  COVENANT,  AND 
SIGNS  OF  THE  SAME  THING. 

III.  That  the  children  of  believers,  as 

THEY    WERE    CONNECTED  WITH    THE   AbRAHAMIC 

Church,  are  recognized  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to 
THE  Christian  Church. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  135 

If  these  things  can  be  proved  by  the  cer- 
tain warrant  of  the  word  of  God,  it  will  fol- 
low that  the  law  of  baptism  in  the  Christian 
church  is  to  be  interpreted  as  extending  to 
the  children  of  believing  parents.  It  would 
seem  useless  to  deny  the  sign  to  them  who 
have  the  thing  ;  and  as  the  seal  was  once  ex- 
pressly extended  to  children,  if  they  are  to 
be  excepted  afterwards,  in  the  application  of 
another  sign,  of  the  same  meanings  intent 
and  wse,  the  exception  must  be  specified, 
otherwise  (he  sign  follows  with  the  thing. 
God  having  given  his  charter  and  sealed  it  to 
a  specified  class  of  persons ;  afterwards  while 
he  expressly  continues  the  charter  but  chan- 
ges the  form  of  the  seal, — the  seal  in  that 
changed  form  remains  of  course.  Without 
an  express  warrant  from  God,  man  may  not 
take  away  the  charter,  or  refuse  the  seal. 

If,  in  addition  to  this,  we  find, 

IV.  Grounds  for  concluding  that  apostles 
APPLIED  THE  SIGN;  and  certain  history  io 
show  that  THE  whole  Church  received  the 
PRACTICE,  as  they  believed,  from  the  apostles; 
and  so  practised,  uniformly  all  over  the  world ^ 
with  not  a  man  to  raise  his  voice  against  the 
divine  authority  of  the  practice  for  more  than 


136  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

thirty  generations  after  Christ  ;  I  think  we 
may  rest  the  question  as  settled.  It  is  not 
only  lawful ;  but  a  correct  and  authorized 
interpretation  of  the  law  of  the  institution 
requires  believing  parents  to  cause  their  in- 
fant children  to  be  baptized. 

This  is  the  outline  of  the  argument  which 
I  shall  pursue.     And  now  to  the  proof. 

I.  The  Ahrahamic  and  the  Christian  church 
are  one  and  the  same. 

The  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham  (Gen. 
xii.  1 — 3,)  and  promised  that  in  him  should 
*'  All  the  families  of  the  earth  he  blessed.''^  In 
Gen.  xvii.  1 — 14,  God  again  promised  that 
Abraham  should  be  "  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions ;"  and  that  he  would  be  "  a  God  to  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  himP  At  the  same  time 
God  gave  him  the  ordinance  of  circumcision 
for  himself  and  for  his  seed. 

Here  was  the  commencement  of  the  polity 
of  the  peculiar  people  of  God  intended  by 
the  term  church  y  and  distinguished  (Rom. 
iii.  2,)  as  having  entrusted  to  them  "The 
oracles  of  God  ;"  and  (Rom.  ix.  5,)  as  those 
to  whom  ''pertain  the  adoption,  and  the 
covenants,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
promises;"  and  declared (1  Tim.  iii.   15,)  to 


INFANT  BAPTIS->1.  137 

be  "  The  house  of  God  ;"  "  the  church  of 
the  living  God,"  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of 
the  truth." 

On  account  of  this  covenant  God  is  called 
the  "  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of 
Jacob ;"  rather  than  the  God  of  Enoch,  or 
of  Noah,  or  of  Moses,  or  of  David.  He  is 
called  THEIR  God  in  relation  to  this  coven- 
ant;  as  in  numberless  instances,  so  particu- 
larly in  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  as  God  hath  said,  "  I 
will  dwell  in  them  and  walk  in  them ;  and 
I  will  be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  my 
people  ;  i.  e.  "  t/iHr  God,"  as  he  is  not  the 
God  of  other  men  ;  and  they  his  people,  as. 
other  men  ave  jiot  his  people.  So  in  Heb. 
xi.  16,  "  Wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to 
be  called  their  God." 

This  people  of  God,  as  an  external  visible 
polity,  is  called  "  Israel,"  or  the  "  Church  :" 
as  in  Acts  vii.  38,  the  descendants  of  Jacob 
are  called  "  the  Church  in  the  wilderness  ;" 
just  as  the  visible  polity  of  Christ's  people 
are  called  "the  Church  ;"  as  in  1  Cor.  xii. 
28,  "  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church  ; 
first  apostles  5  secondarily  prophets  ;  thirdly 
teachers,"  &c.     Here  the  word  Church  does 

not  mean  simply  an   "  assembly ;"  for  it  is 
12* 


138  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

no  particular  assembly  that  is  here  spoken 
of,  but  Christ's  visible  people  every  where  ; 
his  Church  in  the  widest  sense. 

But  the  visible  Church  is  never  made  up 
exclusively  of  those  who  shall  be  saved :  and 
so  the  terms  "/^rae/,"  and  "Church,"  are 
used  ordinarily  to  designate  the  body  of  those 
who  are  apparently  his,  to  wit,  the  visible 
polity  made  up  of  good  and  bad.  Again, 
they  are  sometimes  used  to  denote  particu- 
larly those  only  who  shall  be  the  heirs  of 
salvation.  Thus,  the  first  term  is  used  in 
both  senses  in  the  following  passage  :  Rom. 
ix.  6,  "  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are 
OF  Israel."  And  the  ''kingdom  of  God" 
(the  visible  Church)  is  represented  Luke 
xiii.  47,  as  a  "  Net  cast  into  the  sea,  Avhich 
gathered  of  every  kind ;"  though  only  cast 
for  the  proper  kinds.  When  full  and  drawn 
to  the  shore,  the  good  are  gathered  in  ves- 
sels ;  the  bad  are  thrown  away. 

Now  the  covenant  on  which  the  Abrahamic 
Church  was  founded,  was  not  a  covenant  of 
works,  but  of  grace :  and  its  promise  was 
not  simply  of  the  land  of  Canaan — but  of 
Heaven.  Thus  Rom.  iv.  13,  "  For  the  prom- 
ise that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world, 


INFANT   BAPTISM  139 

was  not  to  Abraham  or  to  his  seed  through 
the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of 
faith.^'^  And  (v.  11,)  "  He  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
OF  FAITH  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircum- 
cised." 

It  has  been  strenuously  asserted  that  the 
covenant  was  one  of  temporal  promises 
only;  and  circumcision  given  as  a  mere 
national  badge  ;  (and  indeed  it  is  necessary 
for  those  who  reject  infant  baptism  to  say 
something  of  the  kind.)  But  the  word  of 
God  teaches  us  otherwise.  "Abraham  was 
justified  by  faith.''''  Rom.  iv.  "  The  pro- 
mise was" "  through   the    righteousness 

of  faith  •'^  and  circumcision  was  "a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  faith  /"  to  wit,  of  the 
faith  by  which  men  must  be  justified.''^  So 
we  are  taught  expressly  (Heb.  xi.)  that 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  Sara,  and 
"  multitudes"  of  their  descendants, — as  the 
sand  which  is  by  the  sea  shore  innumerable, 
"  died  in  the  faith  ;" — not  simply  in  faith  of 
the  promise  of  Canaan,  but  of  Heaven. 
Thus,  Heb.  xi.  13,  15,  "And  confessed 
that  they  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the 
earth," — "  but  now  they  desire  a  better  coun- 


HO  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

try,  ^'  THAT  IS,  a  Heavenly  :"  wherefore  God 
is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God  ;  ''''for 
he  hath  prepared  for  ihtm  a  city."  What 
"  city,"  but  Heaven  ? 

And  since  there  is  no  other  name  than 
Christ  whereby  man  must  be  saved.  Acts 
iv.  12,  since  there  is  "  One  God  and  one 
mediator  between  God  vind  man,"  1  Tim. 
ii.  5,  these  men  believed  on  Christ.  This 
we  are  expressly  taught.  Thus,  "Abraham 
rejoiced  to  see  my  day,  and  he  saw  it,  and 
was  glad."  So  of  all  the  ancient  Israelites 
who  were  saved  it  is  expressly  said,  1  Cor. 
X.  2 — 4,  "And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea;  anl  did  all 
eat  OF  THE  SAME  SPIRITUAL  MEAT  :  and  did  all 
drink  of  the  same  spiritual  drink  :  for  they 
drank  of  that  spiritual  rock  that  followed 
them  ;  and  that  rock  was  Christ." 

Here  pause  a  moment.  Was  not  that  the 
TRUE  Church  5  whose  true  members 

Believed  on  Christ ; 

Sought  a  Heavenly  country  ; 

Were  justified  by  faith  J- 

Of  whom  the  world  was  not  worthy  ; 

For  whom  God  prepared  a  city  ; 

*dnd  who  are  now  set  down  in  the  kingdom 
of  God  ? 


I 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  141 

In  what  respect  does  the  Church  of  Christ 
differ  from  this,  in  the  articles  which  may- 
well  be  judged  the  Articles  of  the  true 
Church  of  God  ?  What  more  than  this 
makes  the  true  Church,  that  its  true  mem- 
bers 

Believe  on  Christ  ; 

Seek  a  heavenly  country  j 

Are  justified  BY  faith;  of  whom 

God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their 
God;  and 

Hath  prepared  for  the3I  a  city  ;  and  who 
are  now 

Set  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

''  But  the  Jewish  polity  is  passed  away." 
True.  But  the  Abrahamic  Church  is  quite 
a  different  thing  from  the  Jewish  polity. 
Thus,  Gal.  iii.  17,  "  And  this  I  say,  that  the 
covenant^  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God, 
in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannual,  that 
it  should  make  the  promise  of  none  effect.'*' 
And  if  the  ffivrinor  of  the  law  did  not  annul 
the  covenant,  certainly  the  covenant  is  not 
annulled  by  the  removing  of  the  ceremonial 
law.  And  this  is  the  very  thing  for  which 
Paul  is  arguing  ;  and  which  the  Holy  Ghost, 


142  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

who  inspired  him,  teaches  through  his  argu- 
ments:— that  the  covenant  and  its  blessings 
remain,  and  come  upon  the  Gentiles,  as 
Paul^  says  in  express  words,  (v.  11)  "  That 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  biigiit  come  on  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ.''^ 

Now  '•  Circumcision  was  not  of  Moses  but 
of  the  fathers,"  John  vii.  22.  It  was  the 
seal  of  a  covenant  which  existed  before  the 
law  ;  and  neither  the  giving  of  the  law  nor 
the  removal  of  it  affected  either  the  coven- 
ant or  the  seal.  The  covenant  remaining, 
the  seal  remained,  of  course,  unless  special- 
ly abrogated.  Another  form  of  the  seal  Avas 
indeed  adopted  under  Christ,  as  another  day 
was  adopted  for  the  Sabbath,  instead  of  the 
seventh. 

The  seal  being  changed,  circumcision  was 
interdicted,  (Acts  xv.)  but  this  was  espe- 
cially on  the  ground  that  those  who  enjoined 
circumcision,  taught  that  it  was  needful  to 
circumcise  them  and  to  command  them  to 
keep  the  law  of  Moses  ;"  and  to  circumcise 
as  well  as  baptize.  The  circumcision,  under 
these  circumstances,  was  enjoined  and  re- 
ceived under  the  notio?i  of  being  justified  by 
the  law  ;  and  became  in  its  practical  effect 


INFAxNT  BAPTISM.  143 

a  nig, I  of  justification  by  the  law.  Under 
these  circumstances,  the  apostles,  divinely- 
instructed,  did  with  circumcision  what  Heze- 
kiah  did  with  "the  brazen  serpent  that 
Moses  had  made."  2  Kings  xviii.  14.  It 
must  no  longer  be  tolerated  when  it  became 
the  means  of  sin  and  ruin.  Paul  also  (Gal. 
V.)  spoke  against  circumcision  on  the  ground 
that  they  who  practised  it,  did  it  under  the 
notion  of  attaining  justification  by  the  works 
of  the  law.  To  keep  the  seventh  day  under 
the  notion  of  being  justified  by  the  law, 
would  put  one  equally  oif  from  the  ground 
of  grace.  He  would  be  ^^  fallen  from 
grace ; '  and  "  Christ  should  profit  him 
nothing."  It  was  on  this  ground  that  Paul 
interdicted  circumcision,  and  on  this  OfJy  ; 
for  Paul  himself,  (Acts  xvi.  3),  when  he  would 
have  Timothy  go  forth  with  him,  "  took  him 
and  circumcised  him^  because  of  the  Jews 
which  were  in  those  quarters." 

So  far,  then,  the  covenant  with  its  seal  re- 
main unimpaired  by  the  giving  and  the  re- 
moving of  the  law. 

"  Wherefore,  then,  serveth  the  lawl"  It 
was  added,  because  of  transgressions,  till  the 
seed  should  come,  to  whom  the  promise  was 


144  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

made.  Gal.  iii.  19.  The  inference  is  in- 
evitable ;  the  law  passes  away  when  Christ 
comes  ;  since  it  was  only  added  to  continue 
^'"iilV  that  time.  The  promise  and  the  cov- 
enant remain  to  be  fulfilled  :  to  wit,  the  pro-  I 
mise  referred  to  in  these  words,  Gal.  iii.  8, 
*'  And  the  Scripture  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  gospel  to  Abraham, 
saying,   "  In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of 

THE  EARTH  BE  BLESSED." 

If  now  we  were  to  add  to  this,  "  So  then 
modern  believers  are  built  upon  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ;'•  the  rea- 
soning might  be  questioned.  But  the  word 
of  God  has  come  to  such  a  conclusion,  and 
it  ought  to  seem  to  be  no  longer  a  matter 
to  be  questioned.  "  So^  then^''  says  the 
apostle,  "  they  which  he  of  faith,  are  blessed 
with  faithful  AhrahamP  ^^  Know  ye  not, 
that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the 
children  of  Abraham."  Gal.  iii.  7.  Why 
are  they  not  called  the  children  of  Enoch,  or 
of  Noah,  or  of  Elijah,  or  of  Moses  ?  These 
men  had  faith  ;  and  were  justified  by  faith. 
If  simply  to  be  justified  by  faith  be  the  mat- 
ter in  which  we  are  "  Abraham's  seed,"  can 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  145 

any  mortal  tell  why  we  might  not  as  well  be 
called  the  seed  of  Enoch,  or  of  Noah,  or  of 
Moses,  or  of  Elijah  1  Plainly  the  covenaat, 
and  its  promises,  are  the  reason  why  we  are 
Abraham'' s  seed :  and  Paul  accordingly  rea- 
sons on  the  ground  of  the  covenant  and  the 
promise.  But  hear  his  conclusion,  Gal.  iii. 
29,  "  And  if  ye  be  Christ^s,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the 

PROMISE." 

I  might  rest  the  argument  here ;  but  the 
word  of  God  is  not  content  to  leave  the  mat- 
ter so.     It  would  make  it  so  plain,  "  that  he 
may  run  who  readeth  it."      Thus,  the  pro- 
phets  uniformly  represent  the  kingdom  of 
Zion,  not  as  a  new  church,  but  as  Israel  en- 
larged by  the  "  bringing  in'^  of  the  Gentiles. 
To  say  all  that  might  be  said  in  proof  of  this 
would  be  to  repeat  nearly  all  the  passages  in 
the  prophets  which  speak  of  the  kingdom  of 
Christ.     For  your  satisfaction  I  refer  to  the 
Ixth  of  Isaiah,  and  onward  through  the  Ixvth. 
Here  is  no  casting  away  of  God's   people, 
and  the  erection  of  an  entire  new  polity.     It 
is   Zion  ;  it  is    Jerusalem  that    arises   and 
shines  ;  her  light  being  come  ;  and  the  glory 

of  the   Lord    being  risen   upon   her.     The 
13 


146  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Gentiles  come  to  her  light,  and  kings  to  the 
brightness  of  her  rising :  all  they  gather 
themselves  and  come  to  thee.''"'  These  pro- 
phecies represent  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ 
in  her  course  to  universal  empire  over  the 
earth:  but  it  is  still  the  ancient  Z ion,  and  the 
ancient  Jerusalem.  It  is  still  the  covenant 
people  of  God  ;  at  a  period  when  the  promise 
is  made  sure  to  all  the  seed  ;  not  to  that 
only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is 
of  faith  ;" — to  the  Gentiles,  upon  whom  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  comes  in  the  latter 
day. 

The  apostles  are  not  less  distinct  in  this 
matter  than  the  prophets.  Thus  Paul,  Eom» 
xi.  25,  "  Blindness  in  part  is  happened  unto 
Israel  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come 
in.'"  ("  In  ?"  Into  what  \  To  a  house  that 
is  thrown  down  and  cast  away  X)  And  more 
expressly  in  Eph.  ii.  12 — 22,  "  Wherefore 
remember  that  ye,  being  in  times  past  Gen- 
tiles m  the  flesh," — "that  at  that  time  ye 
were  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the 
Commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from 
the  covenant  of  promise,  are  made  nigh  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our  peace, 
who  hath  MADE  both  one,  having  broken  down 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  l^T 

the  middle  wall  of  partition^^ — "  Now  there- 
fore ye  are  no  move  strangers  and  foreigners^ 
h\it  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the 
HOUSEHOLD  OF  GoD  J  and  are  built  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  ?ipost\es  and  prophets,  Jesus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone." 

I  know  there  are  those  to  whose  scheme 
it  is  destruction,  to  consider  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant  as  pertaining  at  all  to  us  ; 
or  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  church 
one  and  the  same  :  and  hence,  when  we 
mention  these  things  they  profess  that  it  is 
all  unintelligible. ;  and  throw  them  by  con- 
temptuously as  an  idle  and  pernicious  fig- 
ment. But  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  cannot 
throw  these  things  away  without  throwing 
away  the  word  of  God.  But  as  if  the 
Scriptures  had  anticipated  what  objections 
would  be  raised,  they  go  on,  as  though  de- 
termined  to  put  the  matter  beyond  a  ques- 
tion, if  the  clearest  representations  of  holy 
writ  can  put  any  thing  beyond  question. 

Thus,  in  Rom.  xi.  '•  God  hath  Jiot  cast 
away  his  people''''  whom  he  foreknew, — 
"  there  is  a  remnant,^'' — "  the  rest  are  blind- 
ed." "  jlnd  if  some  of  the  branches  be 
broken  off,^^  (mark  !  is  the  trunk  destroyed 


148  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

when  some  of  the  branches  are  broken  oft"?) 

"  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  graff- 
ed  in  among  I  hem, ^^  (grafted  tWo  nothing"? 
and  among  nothing  *?)  *'  and  with  them  par- 

TAKEST  OF  THE  ROOT    AND    FATNESS  of  the  oHvB 

treeV^  (Tell  me,  ye  who  are  familiar  with 
the  process  of  engrafting  :  is  the  trunk  torn 
up  and  cast  away,  when  the  scion  is  grafted 
in  among  its  green  branches,  and  with  them 
partakes  of  its  7'oot  and  fatness  ?)  "Boast 
not  against  the  branches  :  but  if  thou  boast, 
thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee." 

Can  any  thing  more  strikingly  and  cer- 
tainly  assert,  that  the  old  trunk,  the  Abra- 
hamic  church  is  not  thrown  aside  ;  but  that 
the  Christian  church  draws  its  support  and 
sustenance  from  the  original  and  still  living 
root,  the  covenant  of  promise  ; — which  se- 
cures us  Christ  ;  which  secures  us  all  the 
mercy  that  God  has  covenanted,  or  which 
comes  to  us  through  his  Son  ?  Could  a  voice 
from  heaven,  louder  than  seven  thunders, 
and  distinct  as  that  which  shall  call  the  world 
to  judgment,  make  this  matter  more  plain  1 

One  more  passage  of  holy  writ,  and  I 
have  done  on  this  point.  The  passage  is  in 
Rom.  iv.  16,  17.      "Therefore  it  is  oi  faith 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  149 

that  it  might  be  by  grace,  to  the  end  that  the 
PROMISE  might  be  siire  to  all  the  seed  ;  not 
only  to  that  which  is  of  the  law  ;  but  to  that 
also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham  5  who 
is  the  father  of  us  all  j  as  it  is  written,  I 
have  made  thee  a  father  o( many  nations." 

Here  1  rest  under  the  first  point ;  believ- 
ing the  proof  to  be  plain  and  incontroverti- 
ble,— resting  on  the  sure  authority  of  the 
word  of  God  ;  that  the  Abrahamic  and  the 
Christian  church  are  one  and  the  same  ; 
built  upon  the  same  covenant  ;  saved  with 
the  same  faith  ;  considered  in  the  word  of 
God  as  one  and  the  same  church. 
I  proceed  to  the  second  point. 
II.  Circumcision  and  baptism  are  alike  the 
seal  of  the  same  covenant,  and  the  sign  of  the 
same  thing. 

God  appointed  circumcision  the  seal  of 
his  covenant  with  Abraham  in  these  words, 
Gen.  xvii.  10.  "  This  is  my  covenant, 
which  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and  you, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee  :  Every  man  child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised."  Here 
circumcision  is  called  the  "  covenant,''''  by  a 
common  figure  of  placing  the  sig7i  for  the 
thing.  Every  one  understands  that  literally 
13* 


150  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

circumcision  is  not  the  covenant^  but  the 
token,  or  sign,  or  seal  of  the  covenant.  That 
it  is  such  a  "  sign"  and  "  seal," — and  what 
it  signifies  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture. 
Paul  says,  Rom.  iv.  11,  "He"  (Abraham) 
*'  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet 
being  uncircumcised."   A  "sign!"  "a  seal!" 

of  THE    RIGHTEOrSNESS     of — FAITH  !"       Is     nOt 

this  "  righteousness  of  faith''''  the  very  thing 
which  Paul  is  urging  as  the  ground  by 
which  the  sinner  is  justified,  and  has  peace 
with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ; 
of  which  justification"  he  cites  Abraham  as 
an  illustrious  example  %  Of  this  ''''faith'''' 
Abrahamreceivedcircumcisionasthe"seal." 
And  what  was  the  import  of  the  seal  1  The 
renewal  of  the  heart  and  of  the  spirit.  This 
was  the  true  circumcision,  of  which  the  out- 
ward circumcision  was  given  as  the  sign. 
Rom.  ii.  29.  ''  Circumcision  is  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter."  That 
is,  the  real  thing  denoted  by  the  sign,  cir- 
cumcision ; — the  truly  being  what  circum- 
cision should  be  the  sign  of  being,  is  to  be 
cleansed  in  heart.  Of  this  it  is  the  sign.  Of 
the  remission  of  sin  and  of  the  acceptance  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  151 

the  soul  through  the  righteousness  of  faith 
it  is  the  "  SEAL." 

Now  baptism  is  the  seal  and  sign  of  the 
same  things.  Thus,  Acts  xxii.  16,  "  Arise 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins^ 
The  baptism  does  not  literally  wash  away 
sins :"  but  it  is  the  sign^  or  token^  or  seal^ 
of  the  washing  away  of  sins  ;  and  of  accept- 
ance with  God,  in  justification  through  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  The  real  washing 
away  of  sins  is  accomplished  with  a  bloody 
baptism — by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ ;"  of  this,  baptism  is  the  seal^  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  manner  as  circumcision  was 
the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  ;  and 
the  "  sprinkling  of  blood  is  shadowed  forth 
by  the  sprinkling  of  water. 

And  what  is  the  import  oUhis  seal  1  What 
but  the  washing  of  the  heart  ;  and  of  the  in- 
ward cleansing  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is 
called  the  ''  Baptism  of  the  Spirit  j''  as  the 
circumcision  of  the  heart  was  the  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  ;  so  here  the  baptism 
(or  cleansing)  of  the  heart,  which  is  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  called,  "  The 
washing  of  regeneration^  and  the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost,''''  and  this  is 
shadowed  forth  by  the  "  washing  of  water," 


152  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

or  baptism  :  as  it  is  said  in  Tit.  iii.  5,  "  Christ 
loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it, 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with 
the  WASHING  OF  WATER  by  the  word." 

We  have,  then,  baptism  and  circumcision  ; 
each  a  "  sign,''^  each  a  "  seal;^  and  each  as  a 
sign  and  as  a  seal  signifying  precisely  the 
same  thing. 

But  the  word  of  God  goes  further,  and 
expressly  calls  baptism^  the  circumcision  of 
Christ  :  (or  what  is  its  precise  equivalent — 
Christian  circumcision.)  Thus,  Col.  ii.  11,12, 
"  In  whom  ye  are  circumcised^  with  the  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands  f^ — (Here  is 
the  real  circumcision,  the  inward  "  circum- 
cision of  the  heart  and  of  the  Spirit :" — "  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost")—"  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ:  buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism." Here  is  the  outward  circumcision 
of  Christ, — (the  sign  of  ihe  inward,) — bap- 
tism. Again,  Phil.  iii.  3,  Christians  are 
called  "  The  circumcision ^^^  in  allusion  to 
their  having  wrought  in  them  the  thing  sig- 
nified by  circumcision,  and  of  which  bap- 
tism under  the  dispensation  of  Christ  is  the 
outward  sign.     "  For  we  are  the  circumci' 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  153 

sion,  which  worship  God  in  the  spirit,  and 
rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confi- 
dence in  the  flesh." 

The  Abrahamic  church  had  a  "  seaV  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  "  The  Christian 
church  is  the  same  :  has  the  Christian 
church  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  1 
If  the  Scriptures  may  be  trusted,  it  has  : — 
baptism^  signifying  the  same  thing  as  circum- 
cision, and,  in  so  many  words,  called  the 
circumcision  of  Christ." 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  baptism  is 
substituted  for  circumcision  : 

It  is  a  seal  of  the  sa3ie  covenant  ; 

Ordained  for  the  same  church  j 

It  means  the  same  thing  ; 

It  is  employed  for  the  same  use  : 

While  circumcision  is  passed  away. 

Here  is  the  reality  of  substitution.  If  any 
dislike  the  word  substitution,  I  care  not  to 
dispute  for  the  word  :  it  is  enough  for  me 
that  I  have  proved  the  reality.  Baptism  is 
a  sign,  and  but  a  sign  ]  used  as  a  seal  ;  hold- 
ing the  same  place  ;  having  the  same  mean- 
ing ;  fulfilling  the  same  use  ;  under  the 
same  .covenant ;  and  in  the  same  church  ; 
while   circumcision  is   passed  away.     Here 


154  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

is  the  reality  of  substitution.  If  any  dislike 
the  word,  let  the  word  be  dropped  :  the 
reality  remains,  based  upon  the  word  of 
God.  Baptism  is  now,  what  circumcision 
was  once, — a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  and  of  God's  promise  to  be  the  God  of 
such,  and  of  their  seed  after  them.  Chris- 
tianity has  no  other  sign  or  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.* 

Now  what  would  those,  who  received  the 
command  to  apply  this  new  seal,  understand 
with  regard  to  the  subjects  to  whom  it  was 
to  be  applied  1  They  well  understood  the 
Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  church  to  be 
one  and  the  same  :  built  on  the  same  cove- 
nant, saved  with  the  same  faith,  and  regard- 
ed in  the  word  of  God  as  one  and  the  same 
church.  Circumcision,  the  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith, — was,  by  Divine  command, 
applied  to   children.     When  a  Gentile  was 

*  It  has  been  objected  that  circumcision  was  applied 
only  to  males.  Might  not  this  be  among  the  reasons 
for  a  change  of  the  seal  ?  A  distinction  was  made  be 
tween  male  and  female  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
as  between  Jew  and  Greek,  bond  and  free  :  but  under 
Christ  this  distinction  was  abolished,  "  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free  ;  there 
is  neither  male  nor  female."  Hence — the  seal  remain- 
ing,— there  was  a  necessity  for  changing  its  form. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  155 

proselyted,  the  same  seal  was  applied  to 
him  and  to  his  children.  In  every  covenant 
and  promise  of  God,  their  children  had  been 
included  :  and  this  fact  must  have  deeply 
impressed  their  minds,  that  every  where 
throughout  the  law  and  the  prophets,  God 
was  still  accustomed  to  join  in  the  same 
polity  the  parents  and  the  children.  To  ex- 
clude the  children — is  a  strange  thing,  es- 
pecially from  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant, 
which  still  retained  in  its  promises  the  bless- 
incrs  promised  to  children.  Here  is  a  new 
seal  of  the  same  covenant, — the  same  cove- 
nant, only  enlarged — extending  the  blessing 
of  Abraham  to  the  Gentiles  through  faith. 
Does  the  ratification  and  the  enlargement 
of  the  covenant — cut  off  the  children,  while 
nothing  is  revoked  and  nothing  changed 
save  the  foj^m  of  the  seal.  Here  is  a  new 
form  of  the  seal,  but  it  has  the  same  signifi- 
cation. The  command  is — "  Go  teach" 
(make  disciples  of)  all  nations,  baptizing 
them.  Had  the  command  been — go  preach 
to  the  Gentiles — the  "  Gospel"  which  was 
before  preached  to  Abraham,  Gal.  iii.  8 — 
circumcising  them  ;  "  he  that  believeth"  and 
is  circumcised  ^'  shall  be  saved  ;"  there  could 


156  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

be  no  possibility  of  doubting  that  the  infants 
of  believing  parents  are  to  be  included.  But 
how  is  the  case  altered  when  they  are  to  ap- 
ply another  sign  of  the  same  design  and  sig- 
nification! Is  the  case  altered  at  alH  Will 
they  not  understand  it  as  referring  to  the 
same  subjects  1  So  they  must  naturally  un- 
derstand it :  such  would  be  its  inevitable  in- 
terpretation, unless  there  were  an  express 
exception  of  such  infants  in  the  command. 
Without  some  warrant,  it  is,  methinks,  im- 
possible that  the  disciples  would  presume 
to  take  away  from  parents  and  children  the 
privileges  granted  to  them  by  the  charter  of 
Jehovah.  These  of  necessity  stand  till 
Jehovah  himself  takes  them  away.  The 
chartered  privileges  remaining  to  them  ;  the 
seal  of  that  charter,  as  it  was  once  theirs, 
would  remain,  even  though  the  form  of  the 
seal  be  changed.  . 

This  has  been  illustrated  by  a  homely 
similitude,  and  yet  a  similitude  so  much  in 
point  that  I  will  copy  it.* 

A  man  orders  his  servants  to  mark  the 
sheep  of  his  flock  with  a  bloody  sign  ;  and 
ts  careful  to  add,  See  that  you  apply  this  sign 

*  See  a  valuable  sermon  on  this  subject  by  Rev. 
ErdixTenny,  of  Lyme,  N.  H. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  157 

to  all  the  lambs  also.  Afterwards,  he  sees 
fit  to  dispense  with  the  bloody  sign  made 
with  a  knife  in  the  flesh  ;  and  ordains  that 
his  servants  mark  his  sheep  with  paint :  but 
he  says  nothing  about  the  lambs.  Will  those 
servants,  because  the  marking  is  a  ''  positive 
institution,"  argue  that  the  lambs  are  no 
longer  to  be  marked  ?  As  they  buy  more 
sheep  with  lambs,  will  they  mark  the  sheep, 
but  say  they  have  no  warrant  for  marking 
the  lambs  1  The  contrary.  And  so,  from 
the  very  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  dis" 
ciples  of  Christ,  understanding  the  design 
and  import  of  baptism,  and  having  been  pre- 
viously accustomed  to  extend  another  sign, 
of  the  some  import  and  use,  to  children, — 
would  naturally  interpret  the  command  to 
baptize,  as  implying  the  baptism  of  infants. 
Had  it  been  objected,  that  men  are  to  believe 
and  be  baptized  ;  and  that  even  "  saving 
faith"  is  to  go  before  baptism  in  the  case  of 
adults,  they  would  still  remember,  that  in- 
fants could  no  more  believe  in  Abraham's 
day  than  they  can  now^  ;  and  yet  at  God's 
command,  they  received  "  circumcision,  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of — faith  ;"  and  that 
the  objection  would  have  had  precisely  the 
14 


158  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

same  force  against  circumcision  then,  that 
it  has  against  baptism  now.  They  would 
have  remembered,  moreover,  that  if  the 
want  of  a  capacity  for  "  believing"  should 
hinder  baptism,  the  same  reasoning  would 
prove  that  they  cannot  be  saved  :  since  the 
Gospel  says,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized shall  be  saved  ;"  "  He  that  believeth 
not,  shall  be  damned  ;"  and  infants  cannot 
believe.  But  a  reasoning  which  proves  too 
much,  and  proves  what  is  false,  proves  no- 
thing at  all  :  and  the  objection  falls  to  the 
ground. 

Another  circumstance  would  have  had 
weight  upon  their  minds  in  all  questions 
touching  the  relations  of  children  under  the 
Gospel  dispensation.  Some  parents  once 
brought  little  children  (infants,  says  Luke, 
xviii.  15)  to  Christ,  that  he  should  lay  his 
hands  on  them  and  bless  them.  His  dispi- 
ples  forbade  them.  They  understood  that 
Christ's  kingdom  was  to  rest  upon  faith  in 
the  soul,  and  upon  the  intelligent  obedience 
of  men  to  his  precepts  ;  but  how  could 
children  have  this  faith  or  this  knowledge  1 
They  appear  to  have  come  to  the  same  con- 
clusion  concerning   bringing  little  children 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  159 

to  Christ  that  he  might  touch  them,  that 
many  in  these  days  arrive  at  concerning 
the  baptism  of  little  children  ;  —  "  What 
good  can  it  do  to  an  unconscious  babe  V 
At  all  events,  they  forbade  these  parents  to 
bring  their  infants  to  Christ  for  this  purpose. 
But  Christ  rebuked  them  ;  he  called  the  little 
children  to  him  ;  he  took  them  in  his  arms  ; 
he  blessed  them  ;  he  said,  ''  Suffer  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  me^  and  forbid  them  not ; 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.''^  He 
meant  by  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  either  his 
earthly  church  or  his  heavenly ;  it  matters 
not  which  for  the  argument.  If  the  heavenly 
church  is,  in  part,  made  up  of  such  ;  then 
this  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  Christ  why 
he  should  take  them  in  his  arms  and  bless 
them  ;  and  rebuke  those  who  would  forbid 
them  to  be  brought  to  him.  It  is  the  very 
reason  that  he  alleged  :  and  he  himself  drew 
these  conclusions  from  the  reason.  What 
an  argument  for  bringing  little  children  to 
Christ  now — that  he  may  seal  them  as  his 
own  ;  and  that  visibly  as  he  did  when  he 
took  them  in  his  arms  !  But  i^hy^'' King- 
dom of  heaven^^^  he  meant  his  "  earthly 
church,^^   then  the  argument  is   at  an  end  : 


16U  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

they  are  to  be  baptized  on  this  express  war- 
rant. 

Those  who  wish  to  prevent  this  passage 
from  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue 
say,  that  by  the  words  "  of  such,^^  our  Lord 
meant — not  of  such  infants,  but  of  such 
'^  simple  hearted  and  humble  persons"  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This  would  be  a 
good  reason  why  "  simple  hearted  and  hum- 
ble persons"  should  not  be  forbidden  to 
come  to  Christ  ; — but  the  fact  that  "  simple 
hearted  and  humble"  adults  belong  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  is  no  reason  why  Christ 
should  take  infants  in  his  arms  and  bless 
them. 

It  is  said,  we  forget  that  Jesus  did  not 
baptize  them.  No  we  do  not  forget  that 
"  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disci- 
ples." It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  assert 
or  to  suppose  that  these  infants  were  bap- 
tized at  all.  Christ's  disciples  were  sent  at 
first  to  preach,  not  a  Redemption  completed, 
but  to  preach,  saying,  "  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand. ^'  Their^/^a?  commission 
was  after  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  ;  and 
at  that  time  he  instituted  his  baptism  ;  which 
appears  to  be  essentially  different  from  the 
baptism  practised  before.     The  disciples  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  161 

Christ  baptized  newly  made  disciples  before 
this,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  John's  "  bap- 
tism of  repentance,"  Acts.  xix.  4,  and  not 
the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ  as  the  new- 
seal  of  his  covenant.  Grant  it,  if  our  breth- 
ren please,  that  these  infants  were  not  bap- 
tized.* This  conduct  of  Christ,  and  this  re 
buke  which  he  administered  to  those  who 
would  forbid  infants,  would  at  least  teach 
his  disciples  no  more  to  reject  infants  from 
the  blessings  of  the  Christian  religfion, 
under  the  notion  that  infants  cannot  believe. 
It  would  teach  them  no  more  to  forbid 
parents  to  bring  them  to  Christ  for  his  bless- 
ing. It  would  teach  them  to  be  cautious 
how  they  forbade  infants  from  the  privi- 
leges which  God  had  chartered  to  them  in  his 
covenant.  It  was  designed  to  teach  them 
how  Christ  regarded  infants  ;  and  the  re- 
membrance of  this  would  necessarily  bear 
upon  the  interpretation  which  they  wo'-ild 
give  with  regard  to  the  application  of  the 
*  Though  as  much  is  said  of  their  baptism  as  there  is 
of  the  baptism  of  any  particular  adults  from  this  liuie 
forward  durinor  the  life  of  Christ,  or  indeed  during  the 
previous  part  of  his  ministry.  No  particular  cases  are 
mentioned.  Silence  in  one  case  proves  as  much  as  in 
another. 

14* 


162  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

new  seal,  whether  to  apply  it  to  infants  or 
not. 

But  how  they  did  in  fact  interpret  the  law, 
I  come  now  to  show  under  the  third  head. 

III.  "  That  the  children  of  believers,  as  they 
were  connected  loith  the  Ahrahamic  church,  are 
recognised  in  the  Jfew  Testament  as  sustaining 
the  same  relation  to  the  Christian  church. 

"  For  the  unbelieving'  husband  is  sanctified 
by  the  ivife,  arid  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  husband,  else  were  your  children  un- 
clean, but  now  are  they  holy.''^  1.  Cor.  vii.  14. 
Of  course  this  cannot  mean  that  the  children 
are  spiritually  holy,  simply  because  one  of 
the  parents  is  a  believer.  The  word  holy 
here,  is  the  opposite  of  unclean,  with  which 
it  is  contrasted.  And  the  word  unclean,  (the 
same  in  the  original  language  as  well  as 
ours,)  is  used  in  Acts  x.  14,  15,  28,  and 
Acts  xi.  3,  8,  9,  in  a  way  which  fully  ex- 
plains the  use  of  it  here.  Peter  was  to  be 
prepared  to  go  and  instruct  and  baptize  Cor- 
nelius, a  Gentile.  A  vision  was  given  him, 
of  a  great  sheet,  knit  at  the  four  corners, 
wherein  were  all  manner  of  four-footed 
beasts,  and  creeping  things,  and  fowls  of  the 
air.  And  there  came  a  voice  to  him,  saying, 
Rise,  Peter,   kill  and  eat.     But  Peter  said, 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  163 

Not  so,  Lord,  for  I  have  never  eaten  any 
thing  that  is  common  or  unclean.  And  the 
voice  spoke  to  him  again  :  What  God  hath 
cleansed  that  call  not  thou  common.  So 
Peter  answered  the  messenger  of  Cornelius, 
God  hath  showed  me,  that  I  should  not  call 
any  man  common  or  unclean.  But  for  going 
to  Cornelius,  a  Gentile,  they  that  were  of 
the  circumcision  contended  with  him,  (as 
Peter  might  have  done  with  another  man, 
had  he  not  been  better  instructed  by  the 
vision) — saying,  thou  wentest  in  to  men  un- 
circumcised,  and  didst  eat  iciih  them.  Then 
Peter  rehearsed  the  matter  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  told  how  the  voice  answered  from 
heaven,  saying,  What  God  hath  cleansed^ 
that  call  not  thou  common.  The  point  is 
this  :  to  the  Israelites,  the  Gentiles  had  been 
considered  as  unclean  :  out  of  the  pale  of 
their  society,  and  debarred  from  the  cove- 
nant and  worship  of  the  people  of  God  :  or 
as  Paul  expresses  it.  Eph.  ii.  12 — 22,  "  Gen- 
tiles in  the  flesh, — strangers  from  the  cove- 
nant OF  PROMISE. 

With  this  explanation  turn  to  the  passage 
under  consideration  ; — "  Else  were  your 
children  unclean'^ — cut  ofl[  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Christ's   visible  church,  and 


164  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

debarred  from  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  as 
Pagans ;  or,  as  says  Matthew  Henry,  '-'■They 
would  be  heathen,  out  of  the  pale  of  the  church 
and  covenant  of  God.'''  The  Apostle  bases 
his  argument  upon  a  fact  which  he  assumes 
as  well  known  and  universally  recognised 
in  practice  ;  that  the  children  of  believing 
parents  are  so  far  a  "  Holy  seed," — and  in 
that  sense  "  holy" — (as  opposed  to  "  un- 
clean^'') — that  they  are  entitled  to  the  cove- 
nant privileges  belonging  to  the  "  house- 
hold" of  faith.  Doddridge  says,  (and  with 
him  agree,  the  great  mass  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished commentators — as  well  as  the 
great  mass  of  the  Christian  world) — "  On 
the  maturest  and  the  most  impartial  considera- 
tion of  this  text,  I  must  refer  it  to  infard  bap- 
tisms'' Indeed,  this  is  the  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage,  and  the  most  rigid  scru- 
tiny of  the  use  of  the  words  in  the  original 
language  not  only  bears  out  this  interpreta- 
tion, but  condemns  every  other  that  has 
been  advanced.  And  so  surely  does  this 
natural  interpretation  prove  infant  baptism 
to  be  an  ordinance  of  God  that  opposers  of 
the  ordinance  have  felt  that  there  is  no  re- 
lief but  to  set  aside  the  interpretation.      I 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  165 

have  read  many  subtle  and  earnest  com- 
ments and  essays,  written  with  much  talent 
and  pains, — to  set  aside  this  interpretation  ; 
but  I  have  not  yet  found  one  which  attempts 
to  reconcile  it  with  a  denial  of  the  ordi- 
nance. 

The  many  ingenious,  jarring,  and  mutual- 
ly destructive  glosses,  which  have  been  put 
upon  this  passage  to  avoid  the  dreaded  con- 
clusion, show  how  sensibly  they  feel  the  dif- 
ficulty ;  and  how  hard  they  find  it  to  hit 
upon  one  which  shall  seem  tenable  or  plau- 
sible to  all  even  among  themselves.  The 
one  most  commonly  received  and  relied  on 
is  that  of  the  famous  Dr.  Gill ;  which  sup- 
poses the  Apostle  to  mean,  "  Else  were 
your  children  illegitimate^  but  now  are  they 
legitirnate."  The  absurdities  of  this  gloss 
are  manifold  and  palpable.  It  is  sufiicient 
to  mention  one  or  two.  1.  The  terms  which 
he  renders  "  legitimate"  and  "  illegitimate" 
have  no  such  meaning  any  where  else  in 
any  author,  sacred  or  profane  ',  of  course  the 
rendering  is  a  sheer  inventio?i, — the  effort  of 
a  subtle  wit  to  extricate  itself  from  an  un- 
pleasant difficulty.  It  is  impossible  that 
those  to  whom  the  apostle  wrote  should  un- 
derstand him  to  mean  so.     It  would  be  just 


166  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

as  much  to  the  point,  and  no  grosser  license, 
to  render  the  word,  "  Else  were  your  chil- 
dren cripples^  but  now  are  they  sound.  2.  The 
gloss  proceeds  upon  the  ineffable  absurdity  of 
proving  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  by 
the  legitimacy  of  the  children.  A  conclu- 
sion, to  avoid  w^hich,  such  absurdities  must 
be  encountered,  is  surely  irresistible. 

While  the  substance  of  this  gloss  is  retain- 
ed in  the  text  of  the  "  Scripture  Guide  to 
Baptism,^'  TpnhVishedhy  "the  Baptist  General 
Tract  Society,"  another  gloss  is  introduced 
in  a  note  (in  some  editions,  in  the  appendix) 
by  the  authority  of  the  "  Directors"  of  the 
Society.  Both  glosses  cannot,  of  course, 
be  true.  By  which  they  intend  to  abide,  I 
know  not :  whether  by  the  text  or  note  :  or 
which  they  wish  us  to  receive  and  hold  as 
the  truth  ;  or  whether  to  plant  a  foot  on 
each,  as  doubting  whether  either  is  sound  : 
or  whether  to  retain  both,  that  one  may  meet 
some  minds  that  are  not  met  by  the  other. 
The  note  proposes  to  consider  the  passage, 
not  as  referring  to  the  lawfulness  of  the 
marriage  or  to  the  legitimacy  or  illegiti- 
macy of  the  children,  but  to  consider  it  as 
though  the  argument  were,  If  a  believer  put 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  167 

away  a  icife  or  a  husband  as  an  unbeliever,  he 
must  put  away  his  children  also.  But  this  is 
not  the  argument.  The  argument  of  the 
Apostle  is  the  reverse  of  this.  He  assumes 
that  the  children  are  holy  or  clean  :  and 
from  this  fact  assumed  as  admitted  and  well 
known,  he  convinces  the  Corinthians  that 
the  believing  husband  need  not  put  away 
his  unbelieving  wife,  since,  in  that  case,  a 
consequence  would  follow,  which  (he  as- 
sumes)   TIIEY    KNOW    CANNOT   FOLLOW.      The 

argument  of  the  ritual  holiness  of  the  chil- 
dren, is  based  upon  the  fact  of  such  children's 
having  been  treated  as  a  ''  Holy  seed"  con- 
nected with  the  church  of  God.  The  refer- 
ence in  such  case,  can  be  to  no  other  than 
to  infant  baptism  as  notoriously  practised  in 
the  church. 

I  cannot  but  think,  that  had  the  Apostle 
meant  to  say  what  the  note  represents  him  as 
saying,  that  rather  than  leaving  that  meaning 
to  be  inferred  by  a  course  of  reasoning  which 
requires  so  many  ages  to  produce  one  mind 
even  to  guess  it  out,  he  would  have  said  so 
directly,  instead  of  using  the  circuitous  way 
of  talking  about  "  unclean"  and  "  holy," 
w^ords  which   would   naturally   mislead  his 


168  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

hearers,  which  actually  mislead  the  ancient 
church,  as  well  as  so  many  modern  be- 
lievers, and  indeed  the  great  mass  of  the 
whole  Christian  world ;  for  in  truth  there 
are  as  yet  few  even  among  the  Baptists,  that 
have  ever  understood  the  passage  according 
to  the  tenor  of  the  note  in  question. 

The  common  interpretation,  therefore, 
stands  :  and  I  adduce  this  text  as  evidence 
that  as  the  children  of  believers  had  been 
joined  in  covenant  privileges  with  the  Abra- 
hamic  church,  they  are  recognised  in  the 
New  Testament  as  sustaining  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  Christian  church. 

Turn  now  to  another  source  of  argument. 
But  first  let  me  make  some  preliminary  re- 
marks to  show  the  value  of  the  evidence, 
and  to  vindicate  it  from  objections  that  have 
been  raised  against  it. 

The  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the  creation  : 
and  though  weeks  are  mentioned  in  the 
sacred  history,  the  Sabbath  is  not  again 
mentioned  till  Moses :  yet  how  import- 
ant the  Sabbath  was  considered  in  the  sight 
of  God  is  well  known.  Again  it  is  not  men- 
tioned from  the  time  of  Joshua  till  the  reign 
of  David,  and  yet,  (as  says  Dr.  Humphrey,) 
"  It  will  be  admitted  that,  beyond  all  doubt. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  169 

the  pious  Judges  of  Israel,  remembered  the 
Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy."  Moreover, 
the  Bible  says  nothing  of  circumcision  from 
a  little  after  Moses  till  the  days  of  Jeremiah, 
a  period  of  eight  hundred  years  ;  yet  doubt- 
less circumcision  was  practised  all  the 
while. 

In  like  manner,  our  Missionary  Herald, 
each  volume  of  which  is  twenty  times  as 
large  as  the  book  of  Acts,  is  now  in  the  pro- 
gress of  the  36th  volume.  In  the  whole  of 
these,  containing  the  journals  of  so  many 
Missionaries,  narrating  every  important  in- 
cident with  so  much  minuteness,  and  con- 
tinued for  so  many  years,  there  are  very 
few  instances  mentioned  of  infant  baptism.  I 
have  not  the  means  at  hand  of  ascertaining 
how  many,  but  though  I  have  long  been 
familiar  with  them,  and  have  long  observed 
the  fact  with  some  curiosity,  and  have  spe- 
cially examined  not  a  little,  I  am  not  able  to 
find  or  to  call  to  mind  more  than  a  very  few 
instances  previously  to  the  last  two  years. 
But  we  know  that  the  Missionaries  of  the 
American  Board  are  all  Pcedo-baptists.  The 
paucity  of  these  records  of  infant  baptisms 
in  their  letters  does  not  prove  that  they  do 
15 


170  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

not  baptize  infants :  we  know  they  do  ;  and 
once  in  a  while  the  fact  is  mentioned,  but  it 
is  rare,  though  their  converts  amount  to 
many  thousands. 

Suppose  now,  that  at  the  present  time, 
you  find  a  pamphlet  of  some  twenty  or  thir- 
ty pages,  like  a  single  monthly  number  of 
the  Missionary  Herald,  only  half  as  large, — 
coveringthe  groundof  some  fifty  years, — and 
giving  an  account  of  the  doings  of  some 
Missionaries  of  whom  you  have  never  heard 
before.  The  question  is  asked  are  they 
Baptist  Missionaries ;  or  do  they  baptize 
the  infant  children  of  believing  parents  %  On 
examining  the  pamphlet  we  find  such  re- 
cords as  these  :  at  such  a  time  "  I  baptized — 
in  the  night — a  Jailor  and  all  his  :"  at  such 
a  time  "  Lydia  and  her  household  :"  at  such 
a  time,  ''  I  baptized  also  the  household  of 
Stephanas."  Nothing  is  said  as  to  whether 
they  were  all  adults,  or  whether,  as  is  more 
common,  there  were  children  in  these 
households.  Only  this  is  certain,  that  if  there 
were  children  they  were  certainly  baptized. 
Suppose  further,  that  at  this  crisis,  we  dis- 
cover copious  letters  of  these  Missionaries, 
written  to  their  converts  from  heathenism  ; 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  171 

in  which  letters  thej-  use  the  term  house- 
hold just  as  we  do  the  word  family.  Are 
they  Baptist  Missionaries  %  The  presump- 
tion is  that  they  are  not.  You  find  a  diffi- 
culty, which  must  be  removed  before  you 
can  believe  that  they  are  Baptists.  More- 
aver,  you  take  the  journals  of  the  Baptist 
Missionaries  of  fifty  or  a  hundred  times  the 
size  of  this  newly  discovered  pamphlet,  and 
a  hundred  times  more  full.  You  do  not 
learn  that  they  ever  give  an  account  of 
the  baptism  of  a  single  household  :  though 
you  can  understand  how  desirable  it  would 
be  to  make  such  a  record  as  frequent  in 
their  journals  as  possible  :  and  how  readily 
they  would  be  brought  forward  in  argument 
as  often  as  they  might  occur. 

You  now  make  another  discovery  :  viz. — 
that  these  unknown  Missionaries  consider 
the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  church 
the  same.  Now  let  one  passage  be  found 
in  a  single  letter  of  theirs  to  one  of  their 
churches  gathered  from  heathenism,  to  this 
effect  :  "  The  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified 
by  the  husband,  and  the  unbelieving  husband, 
is  sanctihed  by  the  wife,  else  were  your 
children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  ^o/j/;" 
let    it   be   proved   that    they  familiarly  use 


172  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

these  terms  in  the  Jewish  sense : — let  but 
one  such  passage  as  this  be  found,  and 
the  question  is  settled :  they  baptize  chil- 
dren. Who  could  ask  for  more  convinc- 
ing proof,  unless  he  is  determined  that  noth- 
ing shall  prove  it,  save  an  express  decla- 
ration in  so  many  words,  or  a  miracle  1  I 
might  appeal  to  any  man  accustomed  to 
sifting  and  weighuig  evidence  in  our  courts 
of  justice,  is  not  this  valid  proof  of  the  fact  ? 
Were  it  a  question  of  fact  to  be  decided  by 
mere  impartial  jurors  in  our  courts  of  law — 
whether  these  Missionaries  practised  infant 
baptism  ;  could  there  be  a  doubt  how — on 
this  evidence — the  question  would  be  de- 
cided 1  Could  there  be  a  doubt  that  the 
virdict  would  be,  These  men  believe  in  infant 
baptism  and  practise  it. 

Make  it  known  now",  that  these  men  are 
the  Apostles  of  our  Lord,  acting  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  law  of  baptism,  which  ex- 
tends baptism  to  the  infants  of  believing 
parents,  has  a  Divine  warrant  :  and  Infant 
baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  God. 

Strong  as  this  evidence  is,  it  is  further 
corroborated  in  the  fact. 


INFANT  BAPTIS."\r.  173 

IV.   That  the  whole  church  received  infant 

baptism as  several  of  the  early  fathers 

declare,  and  as  the  church  at  large  be- 
lieved,  from  the  apostles  ,  and  that  the 

whole  church,  together  with  all  sects  of 
heretics,  practised  it,  with  not  a  man  to 
raise  his  voice  against  its  divine  warrant 
for  more  than  thirty  generations  af1er 
Christ. 

Some  of  the  apostles  were  spared  to  the 
church  a  long  time,  and  the  interval  between 
the  last  of  them  and  the  earliest  of  the 
Christian  fathers  is  very  brief.  Thus,  Peter 
and  Paul  lived  till  about  a.  d.  63  ;  Jude, 
Thomas,  and  Luke,  till  about  a.  d.  74,  and 
John  liv-ed  till  about  a.  d.  100. 

Before  this  last  date  Justin  Martyr  was 
born,  in  the  midst  of  Christians  at  Neapolis 
in  Samaria.  About  40  years  after  the  death 
of  John,  he  published  his  first  Apology  for 
the  Christians,  addressed  to  Antoninus  Pius. 
In  that  Apology  he  says,  ''  Many  persons  of 
both  sexes,  some  sixty,  some  seventy  years 
old,  were  made  disciples  to  Christ  from 
childhood,'^  (« TraiScov"^ — the  same  word  that 
Luke  uses  where  he  says,  Jesus  took  infants 

in   his  arms).     On  this  passage.  President 
^  15* 


174  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Dwight,  justly  remarks,  that  '•  There  never 
was  any  other  mode  of  making  disciples 
from  infancy  except  by  baptism.''^  Dr.  Pond 
also  says,  "  They  were  doubtless  made  such 
(disciples)  by  baptism  :"  for  the  same  word 
"  made  disciples"  (tixadeT£vdr]<Tav^_^  is  used  by 
Christ  in  the  commission,  "  Go  and  disciple 
all  nations,  baptizing  them." 

Irenaeus  was  born  about  the  time  of  Jus- 
tin. He  was  a  pupil  of  Polycarp  of  Smyrna, 
who  had  been  a  pupil  of  the   Apostle  John. 
Irenaeus  says,  "  I   can   describe  the  spot  on 
which   Polycarp   sat    and    expounded  ;    his 
going   in,    and    coming  out ;  the  manner  of 
his  life  ;  the    figure    of  his   body  ;  the  ser- 
mons he  preached  to  the  multitudes  ;  how 
he  related  to  us  his  converse  with  John,  and 
the  rest   of  those   who   had  seen  the  Lord  J 
how  he  mentioned   their   particular  expres- 
sions,  and  what  things  he  had  heard  from 
them  of  the    Lord  ;  of  his  miracles  and  of 
his    doctrines."*      Irenaeus    says,  "  Christ 
came  to   save  all  persons  by  himself  ;  all  I 
say,  who  by  him  are  regenerated  unto  God  ,• 
infants^  and  little  ones,  and  youths,  and  elder 
persons."     He  constantly  employs  the  term 
regenerated,   for    baptized  ;   and  so   means 
*  Grey,  p.  57, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  175 

here  :  thus,  when  speaking  of  our  Lord's 
authorizing  his  apostles  to  baptize,  he  says,* 
"  When  he  gave  his  disciples  the  power  of 
regfiurating  unto  God,  he  said  unto  them, 
Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them." 
Justin  uses'  the  term  in  the  same  sense  ; 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Christian 
converts,  he  says,  "  They  are  conducted  by 
us  to  a  place  where  there  is  water,  and  are 
regenerated  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
we  were  regenerated  ;  for  they  are  then 
icashed  in  the  name  of  God  the  Father  and 
Lord  of  the  universe,  and  of  our  Savior 
Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.j 

Whether  these  fathers  meant  by  "  regen- 
erated^''^ what  some  later  ones  did  mean, 
that  baptism  confers  an  inward  regeneration, 
so  that  those  who  are  baptized  are  simulta- 
neously and  inwardly  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  is  foreign  to  my  purpose 
now  to  inquire.  Whatever  were  their  views 
of  doctrine^  they  are  certainly  good  witness- 
es with  regard  to  a  matter  of /a cz";  viz., 
whether  infants  were  in  their  day  baptized  : 
and  such  is  the  clear  import  of  their  testi- 
mony. 

*  Gray,  p.  58.       t  Ibid»  p.  58, 


176  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

Tertullian  was  born  a  little  later  than 
Irenaeus,  about  a.  d.  145.  He  ran  into  all 
manner  of  vagaries  of  doctrine  ;  but  this 
invalidates  not  his  testimony  with  regard  to 
a  matter  of  fact,  whether  the  church  in  his 
day  baptized  infants.  He  advises  the  delay 
of  baptism  not  only  in  the  case  of  children, 
but  of  youths  and  unmarried  people.  In  the 
case  of  little  children  he  says,  "  For  what 
need,  except  in  case  of  7iecessity^  that  their 
godfathers  should  be  in  danger  1  Because 
they  may  "  either  fail  of  their  promises 
by  death,  or  they  may  be  deceived  by 
a  child's  proving  of  a  wicked  disposition." 
He  supposed  that  the  act  of  baptism  washed 
away  sins  ;  and  therefore  would  have  not 
only  infants  but  youth  and  unmarried  per- 
sons delay,  till  they  should  be  less  exposed 
to  temptations,  that  they  might  have  the 
greater  benefit  of  the  baptism  and  have  a 
smaller  score  of  sins  to  answer  for  after- 
wards.* He  says  of  infants :  "  What  need 
their  innocent  age  make  such  haste  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,"  (viz.  by  baptism  :)  He 
thus  fully  recognizes  the  practice  of  infant 

*  Among  other  strange  notions  that  he  fell  into, 
one  was,  that  sin  after  baptism  could  never  be  pardon- 
ed.—Hence  he  advised  the  delay  of  baptism. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  177 

baptism  as  in  common  use.  "  And  speaks 
against  it"  say  our  Baptist  brethren. — 
True,  he  does :  but  he  speaks  against  it 
as  against  a  thing  in  common  use.  The 
question  is  not  whether  Tertullian  is  against 
it  or  for  it  ;  but  whether  it  was  in  use  in 
his  day.  He  does  not  pretend  that  baptism 
is  an  innovation,  or  unlawful,  or  that  it  had 
not  been  in  use  from  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles. He  pleads  for  delay,  on  the  ground  of 
advantage,  and  on  the  same  ground  pleads 
that  youths  and  unmarried  persons  would 
be  gainers  by  delay.  He  places  the  rea- 
son for  delay  in  both  instances,  on  the 
same  ground.  But  surely  our  Baptist 
brethren  will  not  receive  his  reasons  for  de- 
lay in  either  case.  His  testimony  to  the 
fact  remains ;  the  more  unquestionable  for 
its  being  incidental,  and  for  his  whimsical 
bias  against  it. 

Origen  was  born  85  years  after  Christ. 
In  his  homily  on  Luke  xiv.  he  says,"  Infants 
are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins." 
Again  in  his  homilv  on  Levit.  viii.  he  says, 
*'  What  is  the  reason  why  the  baptism  of  the 
church,  which  is  given  for  the  remission  for 
sins,  is  by  the  usage  of  the  church  given   to 


178  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

infants  also  V*  He  is  endeavoring  to  es- 
tablish the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  ad- 
duces the  practice  of  infant  baptism' as  a 
proof  of  it.  Again,  in  his  comment  on 
Eomans :  "  For  this  also  it  was,  that  the 
church  had  from  the  Apostles  a  tradition  to 
give   baptism  to  infants."* 

Ambrose^  Chrysosiom,  Cyprian^  and  Greg- 
ory J^azianzen  speak  expressly  of  the  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptism. 

Augustine^  in  reference  to  the  Pelagians 
says,  "  Since  they  grant  that  infants  must  be 
baptized,  as  not  being  able  to  resist  the 
authority  of  the  church,  which  was  doubtless 
delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles^  they 
must  consequently  grant  that  they  stand  in 
need  of  the  benefit  of  the  mediator."! 

Again,  Augustine  against  the  Donatists, 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  says, 
*'  Which  the  whole  body  of  the  church  holds, 
as  delivered  to  them^  in  the  case  of  little  in- 
fants baptized, — and  yet  no  Christian  man 
will  say  they  are  baptized  to  no  purpose. "{ 

Augustine  again  : — "  The  custom  of  our 
mother  church  in  baptizing  infants  must  not 
be  disregarded  nor  accounted  needless,  nor 

*  Gray,  p.  64.        t  Ibid.         t  Dr.  Miller,  p.  36,  37. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  179 

believed  to  be  any  thing  else  than  an  ordi- 
nance delivered  to  us  from  the  apostles,"* 

Again,  he  declares  that  he  ^^  never  met 
with  any  Christian,  either  of  the  general 
church  or  of  any  of  the  sects,  nor  with  any 
writer  who  owned  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, who  taught  any  other  doctrine  than 
that  infants  are  to  be  baptized  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sin."  He  declares  that  it  was  not 
instituted  by  councils,  but  was  always  in  use.lf 

Now,  in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of 
these  witnesses,  we  have  the  Tract, — '-The 
Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism,"  published  by 
"  The  General  Baptist  Tract  Society  :"  and 
this  Tract  says,  "  Our  principles  are  as  old 
as  Christianity.  Persons  holding  our  dis- 
tinctive principles,  i.  e.  the  baptism  of  be- 
lievers o?Lly,  have  appeared  in  all  ages  of 
the  Christian  era.  From  Christ  to  nearly 
the  end  of  the  2d  century,  there  were  no 
others,"  (the  word  "  no  others"  in  capitals,) 
"  at  least,  if  thete  were  any,  their  history  is 
a  blank.  After  infant  baptism  was  intro- 
duced, many  opposed  it."  So  says  this  tract 
by  Pengilly.  Round  assertion  !  But  on  what 
proof  1  Not  a  scrap  is  offered  ;  and  that  for 
the  best  of  all  reasons,  there  is  no  such  evi- 

•  Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  37.  +  Ibid. 


180  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

dence  in  the  world.  It  has  been  sought  ; 
most  ardently  has  it  been  longed  for  ;  but 
there  is  none  :  no — none  even  to  hang  a 
pretence  upon.  It  is  asserted  that  none 
practiced  infant  baptism  till  near  the  end  of 
the  2d  century  :  but  do  they  pretend  to  tell 
how  it  was  introduced  then  ;  and  that  so 
quietly  as  to  be  every  where  received  in 
Europe  and  Asia,  and  all  along  the  coast  of 
Africa  and  throughout  the  Christian  world  ; 
and  nobody  know  but  that  they  had  always 
practised  it  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles ! 
No — not  one  poor  lisp  ; — not  a  syllable  to 
show  how  or  when  it  was  introduced  !  It 
is  asserted^  that  "  when  it  was  introduced 
many  did  not  receive  it,  and  many  opposed 
it."  Who  did  not  receive  it  1  The  fathers 
declare  they  never  heard  of  such  a  man  ; 
nor  do  our  Baptist  brethren  attempt  to  say 
who.  Who  opposed  it  1  Echo  answers,  Who  \ 
Our  Baptist  brethren  do  not  attempt  to  tell 
wha.  But  the  "  General  Tract  Society" 
of  the  denomination  send  out  this  Tract  to 
assert  in  round  terms  that  "  to  nearly  the 
end  of  the  2d  century,  there  were  no  others" 
than  Baptists  on  the  question  of  baptizing 
infants,  and,  that  "  after  infant  baptism  was 
introduced,  many  opposed  it '" 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  181 

But  let  US  go  on  with  the  testimony. 
Palagius,  denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
and  was  pressed  with  the  absurdity  of  in 
fant  baptism  on  his  principles.  Could  he 
have  denied  infant  baptism,  or  shown  it  to 
be  a  corruption,  it  would  have  relieved  him 
from  his  difficulties  and  given  him  a  signal 
triumph.  He  was  a  man  of  great  abilities 
and  great  learning,  and  had  traveled  the 
Christian  world  over.  He  and  his  coadjutor, 
Celestius,  used  every  means  to  relieve  them- 
selves from  the  pressure  of  the  question, 
*'  Why  are  infants  baptized  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  if  they  have  none  1"  With  this  argu- 
ment, says.  Dr.  Pond,*  "  Pelagius  and  his 
abettors  were  much  embarrassed,  and  had 
recourse  to  a  variety  of  evasions  in  order  to 
escape  from  it.''  But  they  never  denied 
infant  baptism.  They  never  pretended  that 
it  was  a  corruption  or  innovation.  On 
the  contrary,  Pelagius  says,  '^  Baptism  ought 
to  be  administered  to  infants  with  the  same 
sacramental  words  which  are  used  in  the 
case  of  adults."  "  Men  slander  me,"  said  he, 
"  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to 
infants  ;"  and  again,  "  I  never  heard  of  any, 

*  Dr.  Pond  on  Baptism,  p.  107. 
16 


182  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

not  even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who  de- 

NIED    BAPTISM  TO   INFANTS.* 

It  is  easy  to  see,  from  these  extracts,  that 
the  Christian  church  early  slid  away  from 
purity  in  doctrine  ;  and  that  many  of  the  old 
Fathers  were  hot  very  sound  theologians.  I 
adduce  them  not  to  prove  a  point  in  theology 
by  their  opinion  ;  1  adduce  them,  not  to 
build  infant  baptism  on  their  authority  ;  I  ad- 
duce them  as  witnesses  to  a  matter  of  fact  : — 
that  from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  infant  bap- 
tism was  every  where  practised,  and  under- 
stood to  have  been  received  from  the  apos- 
tles, with  no  man  any  where  to  lisp  a  breath 
in  favor  of  a  contrary  supposition  ;  but  with 
the  unbroken  and  uniform  belief  that  its 
authority  rested  on  a  foundation  none  other 
than  the  practice  of  apostles  who  were  in- 
spired of  God. 

If  it  had  ever  been  a  corrupt  innovation, 
would  there  not  have  been  somewhere  some 
controversy  about  it  %  Would  all,  every 
where,  have  so  unanimously  have  agreed  to 
receive  it  ?  Would  every  trace  of  such  in- 
'  novation  or  such  controversy  have  perished 
from  history ;  so  that  men  living  near  the 
*  Dr.  Pond  on  Baptism,  p.  108 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  183 

apostolic    age,  though  under  the   strongest 
inducement  to  seek  out  such  history,  had  it 
existed,  could  never  be  able  to  find  the  least 
trace  or  fragment  of  it,  or  even  to   suspect 
its  existence  !     Could  these  things  be  so  ] 
Can  you    believe    them    to    be    so  1     Can 
you   stretch   your    credulity    to  that  point 
with  ever   so  great  an    effort  ]     But   unless 
what  is  so  improbable  and  incredible  be  cer- 
tainly true  ;  then   infant  baptism  was  prac- 
tised by  the  apostles,  and  rests  for  its  author- 
ity upon   the   authority    of   God.     Now  we 
know  how  to  interpret  the  command,  "  Go 
and  teach   (disciple)    all  nations,   baptizing 
them  ;" — it  means,   "  Baptize  believers  and 
their  infant  children.     It  means,  to  observe 
the  order  of  the  ancient    covenant  :  which 
made  God  the  God  of  believers  and  of  their 
seed  after  them.     A  flood  of  light  is  thrown 
upon  the  interpretation  of  such  passages  as 
represent    Christ    as  taking    little   children 
in  his  arms,  and    saying,   "  of   such    is  the 
kingdom   of  heaven."     It  corroborates  our 
understanding   of  those     narratives    which 
speak  of  the  baptism  of  households.  It  corro- 
borates the  natural  interpretation  of  that  p  a  s- 
sage  which  says,  "  The  unbelieving  husband 


184  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 
holy."  One  by  one,  we  have  taken  up  these 
stones  fitted  by  the  chisel.  They  match 
together.  We  build  on.  They  grow  into  an 
arch,  as  if  formed  by  the  Great  Master 
Builder  with  that  design.  Not  a  stone  is 
wanting.  The  key  stone  is  driven.  Each 
stone  lends  its  aid  to  strengthen  the  whole. 
The  work  is  complete.  It  stands.  It  will 
stand  eternally  ;  and  round  its  circling 
brow  is  graven  as  in  letters  sunk  deep  in  the 
enduring  rock,  and  illumined  by  the  rays  of 
heaven  : — "The  baptism  of  the  infant  chil- 
dren OF  BELIEVING  PARENTS,  RESTS  FOR  ITS 
FOUNDATION,  UPON  NO  LESS  A  BASIS  THAN  THE 
AUTHORITY    OF    GoD." 


IV. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  :  ITS  UTILITY  VINDICATED. 


ROMANS  III.   1 — 3. 

What  advantage  then,  hath  the  Jew  ?  or  what 
profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  Much  every  way : 
chiefly  because  that  unto  thera  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God.  For  what  if  some  did  not  behove  ? 
shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without 
effect  ? 


The  authority  of  infant  baptism  we  have 
already  considered.  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
answer  some  objections  which  have  been 
urged  against  the  practice  j  and  to  vindicate 
its  utility. 

Before  I  proceed  to  these  points,  however, 

I  desire  to  say  a  little  more  with  regard  to 

the  History  of  infant  baptism.       I  proved,  I 

trust   to   your  satisfaction,  that  infant  bap- 

16* 


186  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tism  was  practised  from  the  times  of  the 
Apostles,  with  not  a  man  to  lift  up  his  voice 
against  the  Divine  authority  of  the  prac- 
dce,  for  the  first  four  hundred  years  after 
Christ. 

But  our  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  the 
Waldenses  maintained  their  views  and  re- 
jected infant  baptism. 

Now  granting  that  they  did  5  we  cannot 
trace  the  Waldenses  up  to  the  period  of  four 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  and  their  testi- 
mony cannot  at  all  affect  the  matters  already 
in  proof. 

But  the  Waldenses  are  venerable  wit- 
nesses;  and  though  no  testimony  of  theirs 
can  affect  the  truth  which  we  have  already 
proved,  and  which  rests  upon  ground  to 
which  their  testimony  does  not  reach  5  still 
we  are  willing  and  desirous  to  hear  what 
these  venerable  witnesses,  the  Waldenses, 
say. 

And  here  I  quote  from  Dr.  Miller.*  He 
says,  "  h  is  worthy  of  particular  notice  that 
those  far-famed  witnesses  for  the  truth,  the 
"Waldenses,  did  undoubtedly  hold  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism^  and  practise  accordingly.'^ 
*  On  Baptism,  p.  33  and  40, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  l87 

What  proof  does  Dr.  Miller  bring  for  this 
assertion  1  The  best  possible  proof:  their 
own  "  confessions  of  faith," — and  other  of 
their  writings  drawn  up  between  the  12th 
century  and  the  period  of  the  Eeformation. 
"  In  which,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  they  repre- 
sent their  creeds  and  usages  as  handed  dawn 
from  father  to  son,  for  several  hundred  years 
before  the  Reformatio u^ 

"  And  for  this  cause,"  say  the  Waldenses, 
'•  it  is,  that  we  present  our  children  in  bap- 
tism^ which  ought  to  be  done  by  those  to 
whom  the  children  are  most  nearly  related, 
such  as  parents,  '  &c.  Again,  "  The  things 
which  are  not  necessary  in  baptism  are  ex- 
orcisms, the  breathings, — the  sign  of  the 
cross  upon  the  head  or  fori  head  of  the  in- 
fant,— the  salt  put  into  the  mouth,  the  spittle 
into  the  ears,  and  nostrils,"  &c. 

Understanding  that  their  Popish  neigh- 
bors charged  them  with  denying  the  baptism 
of  infants,  they  acquit  themselves  thus: 
"  yet  notwithstanding,  we  bring  our  children 
to  be  baptized.'''* 

*  Dr  Murdoch  (Xote  on  Moslieim,  Vol.  iii,  p.  228, 
229,)  says, — "  It  is  a  well  known  historic  fact,  that  in 
the  16th  century,  the  genuine  descendants  of  the  old 


188  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

I   now   proceed   to   answer    objections; 

AND  TO  VINDICATE  THE  UTILITY  OF  INFANT 
BAPTISM. 

It  is  asked,  "  Whai  good  can  it  do  to 
sprinkle  an  unconscious  babe  ?" 

If  this  be  asked  with  regard  to  the  effect 
of  the  bare  act  of  sprinkling,  I  answer,  no 
good.  Nor  does  the  bare  act  of  baptizing 
an  adult  do  any  good,  through  any  virtue  in 
the  act  ;  sprinkle, — pour, — plunge^ — wash, 
— scour ^ — do  what  you  will.     The  bare  act 

Waldensians,  Wickliffites,  and  Hussites,  who  were  nu- 
merous in  France,  England,  &c.,  readily  united  with 
the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  communities,  and  at 
length  became  absorbed  in  them  ;  and  that  very  few 
if  ANY  of  them,  ever  manifested  a  preference  for  the 
Mennonite  or  for  any  of  the  ANTi-PiEDo-BAPTisT  sects  of 
that  age" — "  And  if  we  endeavor  to  trace  the  history 
of  that  grand  peculiarity  of  all  Mennonites,  their  con- 
fining baptism  to  adult  believers,  and  rejecting  infant 
baptism  altogether,  we  shall  find,  that  at  the  time 
Menno  first  embraced  it,  it  existed  among  the  nume. 
rous  German  Anabaptists,  but  not  among  the  Wal- 
DENSES  of  France  or  Bohemia,  who  were  then  univer- 
sally  believers  in  infant  baptism."  "  These  Wal- 
densian  Paedo-baptists,  moreover,  declared  that  they 
held  the  same  belief  which  their  fathers  had  maintain- 
ed for  several  centuries  ;  and  they  appealed  to  their 
old  books,  to  make  good  their  assertions."  "  There 
were,  indeed,  various  mystical  sects,  tinctured  more  or 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  189 

has  no  virtue  in  it ;  and  the  bare  water  does 
no  good,  whatever  be  the  mode  of  applying 
it  ;  and  no  matter  whether  the  subject  of  it 
be  conscious  or  unconscious. 

But  if  God  has  commanded  it,  as  a  token, 
— as  a  seal  of  his  covenant — as  a  means  of 
keeping  parents  and  children  and  the  world 
in  mind  of  the  great  truth  that  the  sins  need 
to  be  washed  away  by  "  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  ;"  and  that  the  polluted 
soul,  even  of  the  infant,  needs  the  "  washing 
of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ;" — if  God  sees  fit  to  appoint  it 
as  a  sign  of  his  covenant,  as  he  appointed  the 
bow  in  the  cloud  for  the  encouragement  of 
men  in  another  respect; — if  he  sees  fit  to 

less  with  Manichean  views,  in  the  12th  and  following 
centuries,  who  rejected  all  water  baptism,  on  much  the 
same  ground  as  the  Quakers  still  do,  and  some  of  them 
assailed  infant  baptism  especially,  as  being  peculiarly 
unsuitable  and  absurd."  Tiiere  is  also  pretty  good 
evidence  that  early  in  tjie  12lh  century,  Peter  Bruis, 
and  his  successor  Henry,  with  their  followers,  the  Pe- 
trobrussians  and  Heitricians,  did  at  first  reject  infant 
baptism,  &c.  «'  But  soon  after,  Peter  Waldo  arose, 
and  gave  birth  to  the  proper  Waldensians  ;  and  we 
hear  no  more  of  the  Petrobrussians  and  Henricians. 
They  probably  gave  up  their  opposition  to  infant 
baptism." 


190  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

appoint  it  for  its  salutary  influence  upon  the 
parent's  heart,  to  encourage  his  prayers  and 
his  efforts  for  the  spiritual  good  of  his  child  ; 
— or  if  he  sees  fit  to  appoint  it  as  an  encour- 
agement  to  piety  hy  putting  honor  upon  the 
piety  of  parents ; — or  if  to  make  his  claim  to 
the  soul  of  that  child  ;  and,  by  affixing  his 
seal,  to  challenge  of  him  who  has  received 
it,  love  and  duty  through  all  the  remainder 
of  his  life  ; — or  for  whatever  unknown  and 
secret  reason  other  than  these,  God  has  seen 
fit  to  appoint  the  sign,  then  it  does  good  to 
obey  God,  even  if  there  is  no  good  done  by 
the  bare  act  of  baptizing  an  unconscious 
babe.  Doubtless  there  are  wise  and  im- 
portant reasons.  Some  important  uses  we 
can  see  and  feel;  and  though  the  baptism  be 
not  on  the  irifant's  faith,  yet  how  often  did 
the  Savior  grant  healing  to  diseased  child- 
ren, on  account  of  the  faith  and  importu- 
nity of  the  parents ;  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Syrophenician  woman,  and  of  the  Centurion, 
whose  faith  brought  healing  even  to  his 
afflicted  servant  % 

The  inquiry,  then,  "  What  good  can  it  do 
to  the  unconscious  babe,"  in  the  first  place, 
proceeds  upon  a  ground  which  none  of  us, 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  191 

nor  even  the  objector,  holds  otherwise  than 
as  idle  and  false  ;  viz.,  that  the  bare  act  of 
l^aptizing,  of  itself,  does  good  to  any  body. 
In  the  second  place,  it  is  an  appeal  not  to 
piety,  but  to  infidelity.  In  the  third  place, 
it  proposes  to  men  to  inquire  concerning 
what  they  hold  as  an  ordinance  of  Jehovah, 
"  What  good  can  it  do  1"  And  if  the  ques- 
tion could  carry  its  aim,  and  establish  its 
principle,  it  would  lead  men  to  reject  what- 
ever commands  of  God,  the  reasons  of 
which  are  not  plain  to  their  understanding. 
On  this  ground  Abraham  would  never  have 
left  his  father's  house  :  he  would  never  have 
proceeded  to  offer  up  his  son  for  a  burnt 
offering. 

Surely,  we  shall  not  be  driven  from  faith 
and  duty  by  this  illogical  and  infidel  objec 
tion,  how  often  soever  our  brethren  may  see 
fit  to  sound  it  in  our  ears !  Surely,  it  is  not 
good  to  disobey  God  under  the  notion  that 
he  has  required  what  can  do  no  good  !  How 
easy  would  it  have  been  to  ask  the  same 
question  with  regard  to  circumcising  in- 
fants %  How  easy  to  pour  out  a  torrent  of 
ribaldry  upon  "  such''''  an  ordinance,  as 
"  doing  good"  to  an  unconscious  babe  !  How 


192  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

many  worse  things  might  have  been  said  of 
it  than  are  said  of  the  ordinance  which  we 
sometimes  hear  ridiculed  under  the  name  of 
*'  baby  sprinkling  !"  Should  the  Patriarchs 
and  their  posterity  therefore  set  it  aside  ; 
and  suffer  themselves  to  be  jeered  out  of 
God's  covenant  promises  for  their  children? 

But  again  it  is  asked,  "  Do  you  believe  that 
infants  are  lost  if  they  die  unbaptized  V  No, 
no,  no !  We  believe  no  such  thing :  we 
fear  no  such  thing.  But  shall  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  our  infants  are  to  die  in  infancy, 
and  therefore  disobey  God,  and  exhibit  our 
contempt  for  his  covenant  %  If,  peradven- 
ture,  they  should  live^  can  we  be  sure 
that  no  effects  of  our  disobedience  and  unbe- 
lief may  come  down  upon  them  ;  either  by 
the  natural  influence  of  that  unbelief,  or  by 
the  special  displeasure  of  God  upon  those 
who  break  his  covenant  1  Or  if  we  may  be 
sure  of  this,  is  it  certainly  best  to  disobey 
Godl 

But  again,  it  is  asked,  "  Do  you  think  bap- 
tism a  regenerating  and  saving  ordinoMce  ? 
Do  you  think  it  sure  that  the  children  whom 
you  baptize  will  ever  be  converted  and  saved; 
at  least  i7i  consequence  of  the  baptism  ?     And 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  193 

if  not,  i9  what    profit  is  the  baptism,    if  it 

neither  converts  nor  ensures  future  conversion  ; 

and  if  multitudes  who  are  baptized  are  never 

converted  or  saved  V 

If  we  could  not  answer  particularly  to 
these  inquiries,  it  would  still  be  enough  to 
be  able  to  give  this  answer  :  "  God  has  so 
instructed  us:""  and  it  would  be  quite  as  good 
an  answer  as  Abraham  could  have  given 
when  he  was  about  to  do  a  oreater  thino- ; 
and  when  much  harder  questions  might  have 
been  asked  concerning  the  propriety  of  the 
act ;  to  wit,  when  Abraham  was  about  to 
offer  up  his  son  Isaac,  as  a  burnt  offering. 

But  Paul  shall  answer  these  inquiries  in 
detail.  Objectors  argued  of  old  as  objectors 
argue  now  ;  and  while  they  meant  no  such 
thing,  they  have  caused  the  Bible  to  be  made 
all  the  richer :  just  as  all  errors  and  here- 
sies, and  all  the  objections  of  infidels,  sub- 
sequent to  the  age  of  revelation,  have  only 
served  to  bring  out  the  truth  more  clear  and 
glorious  than  it  ever  would  have  appeared  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Avorld.  Who  knows  but 
these  objections  were  made  and  answered 
and  recorded  to  meet  just  such  emergencies 
as  these  1  Who  knows  but  that  God  de. 
17 


194  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

signs,  through  the  spirited  and  persevering- 
efforts  by  which  our  Baptist  brethren  shake 
the  minds  of  some,  and  overthrow  the  faith 
of  others, — to  establish  his  truth  and  his  or- 
dinances the  more  firmly,  and  to  let  his 
Church  see  more  clearly  than  they  ever 
would  have  seen,  the  Divine  warrant ; 
and  the  large  benefits  of  his  covenant,  and  of 
the  application  of  its  seal  to  their  infant 
children. 

The  objection  is,  "  That  the  ordinance 
does  neither  convert,  nor  ensure  conversion : 
that  many  who  receive  it  are  never  converted  in 
their  lives  :  and  that  it  seems  useless,  if  not  a 
mockery,  to  apply  a  seal  significant  of  inward 
cleansing,  and  implying  a  covenant  of  spiritual 
blessings  to  those  who  have  not,  and  may  never 
have,  the  reality y 

I  think  I  have  stated  the  objection  as  fully 
and  as  strongly  as  any  can  desire. 

Paul  shall  answer  it,  and  turn  the  tables 
upon  the  objector,  by  more  thoroughly  es- 
tablishing the  point  than  if  it  had  never 
been  questioned. 

In  Rom.  ii,  he  has  been  showing  the  Jew, 
that  neither  the  law,  nor  the  covenant,  nor 
its   seal,   nor   its  promises,   can   save  him. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  195 

without  his  own  personal  faith  ;  and  by  that 
same  faith,  the  Gentile  may  be  saved  as  well 
as  the  Jew.  Nay,  more,  all  the  seals  and 
privileges  are  null  to  the  Jew,  if  he  be  a 
"  breaker  of  the  law  j"  andif  the  Gentile  keep 
the  law,  it  shall  be  with  him  as  though  he 
had  been  circumcised.  Thus,  verses  25,  26, 
"  But  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy 
circumcision  is  made  uncircumcision ;  there- 
fore, if  the  uncircumcision  keep  the  right 
eousness  of  the  law,  shall  not  his  uncircum- 
cision be  counted  for  circumcision  :" — and 
verses  28,  29,  "  For  he  is  not  a  Jew,  (i.  e.  a 
child  of  God,)  which  is  one  outwardly  : 
neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  out- 
ward in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is 
one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of 
the  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter, 
whose  praise  is  not  of  man  but  of  God." 

Here,  the  conditions  are  as  are  supposed 
in  the  objection  against  infant  baptism. 
Those  ivith  the  seal  shall  not  be  saved  with- 
out their  own  personal  qualifications  ;  and 
those  without  the  seal  shall  be  saved  with 
those  qualifications.  It  is  one  God  who 
shall  justify  the  circumcision  by  faith,  and  the 
uncircumcision   through    faith.      Moreover, 


196  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  seal  is  applied  to  those  who  are  not 
converted  by  it ;  and  many  of  them  are  not 
converted  at  all.  Moreover,  the  seal  is  one 
significant  of  inward  cleansing-,  "  in  the 
heart  and  in  the  spirit:"  and  so  connected 
with  a  covenant  which  has  salvation  for  its 
end. 

The  conditions  are  precisely  the  same  as 
those  supposed  in  the  objections  against  in- 
fant baptism.  Why  apply  a  seal  of  such  a 
signification,  and  of  suck  a  covenant,  to  them 
who  are  not  inwardly  cleansed  by  it,  and 
who  may  never  be  converted  at  all  1  Is  it 
not  mockery  1     At  least,  is  it  not  useless  1 

Paul  had  either  heard  the  objection  made, 
or  his  natural  forecast  taught  him  it  would 
be  made  ;  or,  rather — the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
answer  all  such  objections  then  and  forever, 
caused  the  objection  to  be  started  in  the 
form  of  this  inquiry :  Rom.  iii.  1-3,  "  What 
advantage,  then,  hath  the  Jew?  Or  lohat 
profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  (viz.  if  the  cir- 
cumcision does  not  convert  him,  nor  ensure 
that  he  shall  be  converted  :  and  if  the  cir- 
cumcised person  cannot  be  saved  on  other 
conditions  than  the  uncircumcised  1)  "  Much 
everyway"  answers  the  Apostle.      Chiefly 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  197 

because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the 
oracles  of  God.  For  ichat  if  some  did  not  be- 
lieve? (It  was  with  the  circumcised  as 
with  the  baptized,  some  did  not  believe  ;  and 
the  unbelievers  were  lost  as  much  as  though 
they  had  been  uncircumcised  :  just  as  unbe- 
lievers will  be  lost,  though  they  may  have 
been  baptized.)  "  For  what  if  some  did  not 
believe  ?  shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of 
God  of  none  effect  ?  God  forbid ;  yea,  let  God  be 
true^  but  every  man  a  liar  J  ^ 

The  unbelief  of  some,  then,  is  no  objection 
against  the  covenant  of  God,  or  against  his 
faithfulness  to  that  covenant  :  and  notwith- 
standing the  objection,  there  is  every  way 
3iuciij5rq/?^  of  circumcision.  It  was  still  the 
seal  of  God's  covenant.  A  score  of  centuries 
after  Jehovah's  promise  to  be  the  God  of 
Abraham  and  his  seed,  the  seed  of  Abraham 
"  as  touching  the  election,"  were  "  beloved 
for  the  fathers'   sake."      "  And  because  he 

loved  THY  FATHERS,  he  chose  THEIR  SEED  AFTER 

THEM  :"  and,  Deut.  vii, — "Know,  therefore, 
that  the  Lord  thy  God  he  is  God,  the  faithful 
God,  which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy 
with  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  com- 
mandments, to  a  thousand  generations." 
17* 


198  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  blessings  of  this  covenant,  it  was 
foretold,  should  come  upon  the  Gentiles. 
Abraham  was  to  be  the  "  father  of  many  na- 
tions.^'' The  promise  was  to  be  "  sure  to  all 
the  seed,  not  only  to  that  which  is  of  the  law, 
but  to  that  which  is  of  faiths  Nay,  the 
prophets  who  foretold  the  glory  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  when  they  spake  in  the  most 
glowing  strains,  made  mention  of  this  same 
arrangement  under  the  dispensation  of 
Christ.  Thus, — Isa.  Ixv.  17,  and  onward. — 
"  For  behold  I  create  new  heavens  and  a 
new  earth ;  and  the  former  shall  not  be  re- 
membered, nor  come  into  mind.  But  be  ye 
glad,  and  rejoice  for  ever  in  that  which  I 
create :  for  behold  I  create  Jerusalem  a  re- 
joicing and  her  people  a  joy." — ''  They 
shall  not  labor  in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for 
trouble,  for  they  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of 
the  Lord^  and  their  offspring  with  them." 

Well  might  the  apostle  Peter  cry  out, 
"  For  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
Well  might  Paul  declare,  "  And  if  ye  are 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise.^'' 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  199 

God  appears  to  have  desig-ned  to  make  a 
large  use  of  the  family  influence  in  establish- 
ing and  perpetuating  the  Gospel  of  salva- 
tion :  in  keeping  alive  on  the  earth  Gospel 
truth  and  Gospel  ordinances.  For  this  rea- 
son he  ordained  that  the  marriage  relation 
should  be  limited  to  one  husband  and  one 
wife.  Thus,  Mai.  ii.  14,  15,  "  Yet  is  she 
thy  companion  and  the  wife  of  thy  cove- 
nant. And  did  He  not  make  one  ?  Yet  had 
He  the  residue  of  the  Spirit.  And  wherefore 
one  ?  That  he  might  seek  a  godly  seed." 
For  the  same  end  he  established  his  cove- 
nant in  the  household  of  Abraham.  "  For  I 
know  him,"  said  the  Lord,  "  that  he  wilt 
command  his  children  and  his  household  after 
him  ;  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the 
Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment:  that  the 
Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  which  he 
hath  spoken  of  him.^^  On  the  same  princi- 
ple it  is  said,  Ps.  Ixxviii,  5-7,  "  For  He  estab- 
lished a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a 
law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  fa. 
thers  that  they  should  make  them  known  to 
their  children  ;  that  the  generation  to  come 
might  know  them,  even  the  children  which 
should  be  born  ;  who  should  arise  and  teach 


200  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

them  to  their  children :  that  they  might  set 
their  hope  in  God,  and  not  forget  the  works 
of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments." 

God  was  pleased  to  ordain  that  his  bless- 
ing and  the  fruits  of  pious  labor  and  of 
prayer  should  go  together  :  and  he  gracious- 
ly established  and  seahd  this  ordinance  by 
covenant.  The  reason  for  the  covenant  and 
the  seal  remaining,  they  remain.  They  re- 
main enlarged  and  ratified  in  Christ  to  the 
end  of  time.  Shall  we  be  told  that  it  does 
no  good  to  remember  this  covenant  % — no 
good,  as  we  look  on  the  seal^  to  let  the  prom- 
ise of  the  covenant  encourage  our  hearts, 
and  quicken  our  prayers  %  Has  the  Lord 
mistaken  his  appointment  j  and  given  an 
unnecessary  covenant  and  a  useless  seal  ? 
Shall  we  conclude  so  %  Shall  we  so  requite 
the  Lord? 

We  cannot:  for  when  we  look,  we  find 
that  in  the  line  of  the  seed  of  the  promise, 
(that  of  Gentile  believers  as  well  as  that  of 
the  law,) — in  this  line  of  the  promised  seed, 
have  been  found  from  age  to  age  the  mass  of 
those  who  have  been  saved.  God  bestows 
his  grace  where  he  has  given  his  covenant ; 
where  he  has  deposited  his  word  j  where  his 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  201 

ordinances  are  observed ;  and  where  the  voice 
of  prayer  and  of  faith  ascends.  Pagan  lands 
bear  not  the  fruits  of  Christendom.  '1  hose  pla- 
ces in  Christendom,  where  the  oracles  of  God, 
the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  the  ordinan- 
ces are  not,  are  not  visited  with  showers  of 
grace  and  blessed  with  a  godly  seed,  like 
those  places  where  the  ordinances  and  the 
word  are  enjoyed.  The  fathers  of  an  ungodly 
community  hand  down  ungodliness  and  per- 
dition to  their  children  ;  and  often,  upon 
their  children's  children  to  the  fourth  gene- 
ration are  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers'  visit- 
ed  ;  no  less  by  the  laws  of  nature,  than  by 
the  providence,  and  according  to  the  word 
of  God.  The  true  worshipers  of  God  be- 
queath their  sanctuaries,  their  Sabbaths,  and 
their  divine  ordinances,  to  their  posterity ; 
who  have  been  imbued  with  the  principles  of 
Divine  truth,  and  trained  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  There  the 
grace  of  God  showers  down  the  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  From  these  are  taken 
those  who  are  to  be  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  the  Lord  Almighty. 

Shall  we  be  told  that  all  this  is  natural., 
and   pertains  not  to   the    provision  of    the 


202  Ii\FANT  BAPTISM. 

covenant  %  Who  made  it  natural  %  Do 
not  the  arrangements  which  God  has  made 
in  the  natural  world  show  as  well  as  any- 
other,  whai  is  his  pleasure  ?  And  do  they 
not  show  us  here  that  it  is  his  pleasure  to  be 
THE  God  of  believers  and  of  their  seed 
AFTER  THEM  1  Shall  it  be  thought  wonderful 
that  he  has  ratified  by  covenant  what  he  has 
appointed  in  nature  1  And  if  the  covenant 
were  to  pass  away,  would  not  the  great 
truth  still  remain  true  in  nature,  that  God  is 
pleased  to  be  the  God  of  believers,  and  of 
their  seed  after  them  1 

But,  is  it  all  natural  1  Is  there  no  grace, 
in  determining  who  shall  be  the  heirs 
of  salvation  1  Shall  we  be  told  that  the 
covenant  is  nothing,  because  God  has  ar- 
ranged powerful  means  to  secure  the  fulfil- 
ment of  its  promises  1  Surely  none  can 
make  this  objection,  who  do  not  at  the  same 
time  forget,  that  the  grace  of  God  which 
brings  renewing  and  salvation  to  an  indivi- 
dual soul,  is  quite  beyond  the  effect  of  the 
most  powerful  means,  and  depends  upon  the 
sovereign  act  of  a  sovereign  God.  In  giv- 
ing his  Spirit,  he  is  sovereign  ;  and  his  sove- 
reignty works  in  such  a  way  as  to  fulfil  the 
promise  of  his  covenant. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  203 

But  when  we  look  at  this  point  more  fully, 
the  light  breaks  upon  us  in  increasing  splen- 
dor. An  attention  to  facts  shows  that  God 
does  remember  his  covenant,  and  put  honor 
upon  its  seal.  From  the  published  and  offi- 
cial returns  of  the  Congregational  Churches 
of  Connecticut  to  the  General  Association 
in  1834,  it  appears  that  two-thirds  of  all  that 
were  received  to  these  churches  on  profess- 
ion of  faith,  the  preceding  year,  had  been 
baptized  in  infancy.  Struck  with  this  fact 
I  was  curious  to  add  up  the  results  for 
several  years,  and  found  them  very  near- 
ly the  same.  The  results  of  an  examina- 
tion of  like  reports  of  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  and  of  the  General  Association 
of  New  York  were  not  essentially  different. 
About  two-thirds  of  all  those  received  to 
our  Paedo-baptist  Churches  on  confession  of 
faith,  are  such  as  were  baptized  in  their  in- 
fancy.* But  taking  the  whole  field,  the 
baptized  children  constitute,  probably,  not 
more  than  o/^e-third  of  the  children  attached 

^  Of  more  than  one  liundred  so  received  by  the 
church  in  this  place,  during  the  eight  years  of  the 
writer's  ministry,  about  three.fourths  were  baptized  in 
their  infancy. 


204  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

to  the  congregations  of  these  churches,  or 
falling  properly  to  no  other  denomination. 
The  state  of  the  case,  then,  is  this  ;  out  of 
one-third  of  a  given  population,  two  are  hope- 
fully converted,  and  brought  into  the  Church, 
where  there  is  one  so  converted  out  of  the 
remaining  ^^it'o-thirds  :  a  ratio  of  four  to  one  ! 
What  will  this  amount  to  in  the  whole  coun- 
try  1  What,  in  the  whole  world  1  What 
will  it  amount  to,  if  you  trace  it  down  to 
the  end  of  time  1  To  a  '^  multitude  which 
is  as  the  sand  by  the  sea-shore,  innumera- 
ble !"  But  in  the  Western  and  Southern 
parts  of  the  country,  the  difference  is  more 
striking  than  in  New  England  ;  because  the 
proportion  of  the  members  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  to  the  whole  population  is  far  less. 
And  these  results  are  witnessed,  when  so 
much  confident  denunciation  of  infant  bap- 
tism has  led  so  many  members  of  the  Church 
to  neglect  it ;  and  led  so  many  more  to  regard 
it  as  a  mere  ritual  rather  than  as  the  valua- 
ble seal  of  God's  covenant.  Oh,  what  might 
have  been  done,  had  parents  taken  hold  of 
that  covenant  with  unwavering  faith  ;  and, 
pleading  the  covenant,  had  taken  encourage- 
ment from    its  promises,  and  from  God's 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  205 

faithfulness,  to  be  more  earnest  in  the  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  which  that  covenant 
implies  on  the  part  of  parents  !  Who  is  to 
answer  for  all  this  loss  and  harm  !  Who  is 
to  be  responsible  for  teaching  the  Church 
of  God  to  neglect  and  despise  both  the  co- 
venant  and  its  seal. 

But  it  is  alleged  that  the  children  of  Bap- 
tist families  are  blessed  also.  We  are  glad 
to  believe  it.  We  praise  God  for  it. 
This  proves  that  God  is  faithful  to  his  cove- 
nant, even  when  his  people  have  not  the 
grace  to  own  it,  and  give  God  thanks  for  it. 
It  is  the  promise  of  the  covenant  that  contin- 
ues to  them  a  godly  seed.  Is  it  not  strange, 
while  the  fruit  remains,  that  the  tree  should 
be  accounted  dead  ]  But  are  they  sure  that 
the  blessing  follows  in  an  equal  degree  that 
it  would,  did  they  acknowledge  and  plead 
the  covenant  1  Are  all  these  rich  promises, 
these  numerous  and  ample  declarations,  by 
which  God  engages  to  be  the  God  of  his 
people,  and  of  their  seed  after  them,  so  poor 
as  to  be  thrown  lightly  away  ;  and  that,  for 
the  strange  reason  that  God  has  arranged 
the  means  of  fulfilling  them,  and  does  ac- 
tually fulfil  them  ? 
18 


206  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

If  our  brethren  choose  to  reject  the  cove- 
nant and  its  seal,  will  they  not,  at  least  al- 
low U8  and  our  children  to  enjoy  it  in  peace  1 
We  have  studied  the  matter  as  well  as  they. 
We  have  a  conscience  to  answer  as  well  as 
they.  We  have  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  and 
we  know  fully  all  the  objections  of  our  bre- 
thren. May  we  never  enjoy  in  peace  the 
ordinances  which  we  truly  hold  dear,  as 
granted  us  and  enjoined  upon  us  by  the  ora- 
cles of  God  ?  Are  we  never  to  have  done 
hearing  it  ridiculed  as  "  Popery,"  "  super- 
stition," and  "  mockery  V  Is  no  respect 
due  to  our  understanding  1 — none  to  our  re- 
gard for  the  truth  1 — none  to  our  religious 
integrity,  and  to  our  fear  of  God  1  And 
yet,  what  we  are  often  compelled  to  hear, 
and  what  is  often  and  diligently  thrown  up- 
on the  members  of  our  churches  to  deter 
them  from  this  holy  ordinance,  take  the 
following  from  "  The  New- York  Baptist 
Register^''  of  May  1st  as  a  specimen. 

"  If  a  parent  is  tempted  to  sprinkle  his 
babe,  he  should  remember,  1st,  That  he  has 
no  right  to  take  advantage  of  the  helpless 
state  of  his  babe,  and  enslave  it  to  usurpers ; 
2d,  He  has  no  right  to  countenance  a  mock- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  207 

ery  of  Christ's  ordinances  ;  3d,  He  has  no 
right  to  dedicate  his  child  in  connection 
with  a  dekision  ;  it  will  make  him  feel  as  if 
the  matter  were  done  up  for  life ;  4th,  He 
has  no  right  to  countenance  a  deluded  and 
crazed  minister  solemnly  telling  a  falsehood, 
however  honest  he  may  be  in  it,  by  saying, 
"I  baptize  thee,"  when  he  does  no  such 
thing  ;  and  by  saying  he  does  it  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity,  when  it  is  not  so  ;  5th,  There 
are  so  many  false  principles  in  the  transac- 
tion, he  should  stop  and  consider  well ;  he 
that  doubteth  is  condemned  if  he  do  it. 
There  is  every  reason  to  believe  it  to  be  a 
deception. '"^ 

Fathers  and  mothers  in  the  Church  of 
God  ;  have  you  ever  felt,  when  you  have 
claimed  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  for 
your  children,  that  the  mere  application  of 
the  seal  changed  the  hearts  of  these  chil- 
dren or  ensured  that  it  would  ever  be  done  ? 
Have  you  ever  felt,  that,  having  done  this, 
the  matter  was  "  done  up  for  life  V  Were 
you  so  instructed  in  your  childhood  \  Did 
you  evei-  feel  so  ?  Fathers  and  mothers  in 
this  Church  of  God  ;  ye    whose   memories 

*  See  the  New- York  Evangelist  of  May  30,  1840, 


208  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

embrace  the  days  of  Benedict,  Eaton,  Swan, 
and  Burnet  ;  have  you  ever  heard  such 
a  doctrine  taught  from  this  pulpit  ?  Has 
any  thing  that  could  countenance  such  a 
notion  ever  fallen  upon  your  ears  in  this 
house  of  God  1  I  look  around  and  see 
many  youths  from  whom,  it  is  not  many 
months  since  I  heard  the  inquiry,  What 
shall  we  do  to  be  saved.  Dear  youths,  did 
it  ever  enter  into  your  minds,  that  because 
you  had  been  baptized,  the  business  was 
done  up  for  life ;  or  that  you  v/ere  relieved 
at  all  from  the  necessity  of  being  born  of 
the  Spirit ;  of  repenting  and  turning  to  God, 
if  you  would  be  saved  1 

I  too  am  a  parent.  I  know  the  hallowed 
and  deep  impressions  of  a  parent  in  present- 
ing  his  child  to  receive  the  seal  of  God's 
covenant  j  I  know  how  strong  is  the  impres- 
sion made  upon  a  parent's  soul,  that  his  off- 
spring are  the  degenerate  plants  of  a  strange 
vine ;  fallen,  depraved  beings,  who  must  re- 
ceive the  inward  washinsr  of  rea^eneration, 
of  which  the  outward  baptism  is  but  the 
sign,  or  be  lost.  I  know  it  comforts  a  pa- 
rent's heart,  as  he  looks  forward  to  the  fu- 
ture life  of  that   child,  and  forward  to  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  209 

eternal  world ;  to  be  able  to  claim  that 
blessed  promise,  "I  will  be  thy  God,  and 
the  God  of  thy  seed  after  thee."  I  know 
how  solemn  is  the  impression  made  upon 
the  parent's  heart,  of  the  covenant,  which, 
in  this  transaction,  he  takes  upon  his  soul, 
to  train  up  this  child  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord. 

It  is  vain  for  the  world  to  inquire  of  the 
Christian,  "  What  is  the  use  of  taking  a  mor- 
sel of  bread  and  a  little  wine  at  the  commun- 
ion 1  Is  there  any  benefit  in  a  mere  cere- 
mony V  When  the  Christian  has  felt  the 
presence  of  the  Savior  at  his  table ;  when 
his  soul  has  been  kindled  into  near  commun- 
ion with  Christ,  as  the  simple  emblems  of 
his  Savior's  body  and  blood  have  set  forth 
that  Savior's  love,  and  sufferings,  and  faith- 
fulness in  connection  with  the  tenderness  of 
that  dying  charge — "  This  do  in  remembrance 
of  meP  0,  it  is  vain  then  for  the  world  to 
ask  him.  What  profit  is  there  in  a  mere  ce- 
remony !  So  with  the  parent  who  has  felt 
the  influence  of  that  solemn  act — the  bap- 
'tism  of  his  child, — upon  his  own  heart  ;  and 
when  in  after  days,  he  feels  how  it  encour- 
ages his  faith,  and  deepens  his  sense  of 
responsibility.  Vain  is  all  the  language  of 
18* 


210  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

reproach  and  ridicule  then.  Men  may  de- 
ride this  faith,  as  well  as  reason  against  it. 
What  then  1  Is  there  an  article  of  his  faith 
which  has  7iot  been  impugned  and  derided  ; 
and  that  too  by  men  bearing  the  Christian 
name  1  The  divinity  of  his  Savior  is  denied ; 
the  atonement  is  denied  :  the  renewinof  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  even  his  personal  ex- 
istence is  denied.  The  inspiration  of  the 
Bible  is  denied  ,'  and  now  even  the  personal 
existence  of  the  Godhead  is  denied  ;  and  all 
these  things  by  men  who  call  themselves  by 
the  name  of  Christ !  If  he  is  to  yield  every 
truth  which  is  assailed,  and  abandon  every 
point  that  is  vehemently  impugned  and  ridi- 
culed ;  what  has  he  left  ?  His  faith,  his 
hope,  his  consolation,  his  Eedeemer,  his 
Sanctifier,  his  God,  is  gone. 

"  Prove  all  things  :  hold  fast  that  which 
is  good."  This  ground  we  have  proved. 
We  have  listened  to  objections  ;  we  have 
weighed  arguments.  These  have  not  moved 
us;  how  much  less  shall  railing  and  re- 
proaches move  us  from  that  which  we  have 
received  to  hold,  as  nothing  less  than  an 
ordinance  of  the  Most  High  God  ] 

Let  us  believe.     Let  us  obey.      Let  us 


INFANT  Baptism.  211 

not  only  be  scrupulous  to  give  our  children 
the  seal ;  but  to  teach  them  afterwards  its 
import ;  to  warn  them  how  they  slight  its 
obligations,  or  undervalue  its  privileges. 
Let  us  make  it  the  basis  of  our  plea  with 
our  children,  that  they  will  not  forsake  the 
God  of  their  fathers.  Let  us  make  it  the 
ground  of  our  plea  with  God,  that  he  will 
give  to  our  children  the  blessings  of  the  co- 
venant which  are  implied  in  the  seal.  Let 
us  ask  these  things  of  our  covenant-keeping 
and  faithful  God.  Let  our  souls  never  cease 
from  the  throes  of  earnest  desire,  till  Christ 
be  formed  in  our  children,  the  hope  of  glory. 
Then,  when  households  meet  around  the 
throne  of  God,  may  the  parents  and  the 
children  rejoice  together  with  exceeding 
joy ;  and  to  the  covenant  mercy  of  God 
shall  redound  eternal  praise. 

Are  there  believing  parents  who  have  been 
misled  concerning  the  truth  ;  or  who  through 
the  want  of  a  proper  understanding  of  the 
ordinance  ;  or  through  unbelief  concerning 
its  utility,  have  neglected  to  claim  its  bless- 
ings, and  to  affix  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
upon  their  children  ]  Have  they  now  seen 
and  understood  the  truth  1  Then  seize  the 
privileges  of  the  covenant,  and  claim  the 


212  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

seal  for  your  children,  if  it  yet  remains 
within  your  power  ;  and  pray  God  not  to  vi- 
sit your  past  unbelief  or  negligence  upon 
you  or  upon  your  offspring.  Cast  not  away 
the  privileges  of  that  gracious  covenant, 
which  the  Lord  has  deemed  worthy  of  Him 
to  offer  to  his  children  as  a  precious  boon 
from  their  Father  and  their  God. 

Let  those  who  are   parents,  and  not  yet 
savingly  interested  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
feel  for  their  children  as  well   as  for  them- 
selves.     Perhaps,  the  seal  of  the   covenant 
was  given  to  you.     Perhaps,  to   you  it  de- 
scended   from    generation    to    generation, 
through  an  unbroken  line  of  pious  ancestry. 
It  was  a  token  that  God,  the   God  of  your 
fathers,  was  ready  to  be  your  God  and  the 
God  of  your  children,  if  you  would  not  by 
your  own  unbelief  and  guilt  cast  away  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant.     Shall  the  line  be 
broken  in  you  \     Think  how  many  genera- 
tions of  the  descendants  of  them  who  dis- 
owned the  Messiah,   and  were  broken   off 
and  rejected  from  being  the  people  of  God, 
have  wandered  away,  and  stumbled  and  pe- 
rished on  the  dark  mountains.     Shall  your 
children,  and  perhaps  your  children's  child- 
ren be  thrown  aside  among  the  branches 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  213 

that  are  broken  off?  It  is  true,  that  no  one 
oi  them  will  perish  but  for  his  own  sin. 
But  how  many  a  child,  and  how  many  child- 
ren's children  do  perish  through  the  occasion 
and  influence  of  an  unbelieving  and  wicUed 
father  1  I  need  only  refer  you  to  the  influ- 
ence of  a  Sabbath-breaker,  an  infidel,  a  scof- 
fer,  a  profane,  or  lewd,  or  unprincipled  man, 
upon  the  destinies  of  his  children  and  more 
remote  descendants.  Can  we  be  sure  that 
there  may  be  nothing  like  this  in  the  influ- 
ence of  him  who  is  the  occasion  of  breaking 
away  from  the  covenant  and  its  seal ;  and 
of  cutting  his  posterity  ofl*  from  privileges 
and  means  of  grace  which  the  piety  of  his 
ancestors,  from  generation  to  generation, 
handed  down  to  him  1  Is  there  no  such 
natural  tendency  or  influence  in  the  exam- 
ple of  his  unbelief? — none  in  his  neglect  of 
household  prayer  1 — none  in  the  separation 
of  him  and  all  his,  from  the  sacraments  of 
the  Church  of  God  1  Remember  and  fear 
that  solemn  admonition  of  God  to  his  cove- 
nant people  of  old — "Because  thou  hast  re- 
jected knowledge,  I  will  also  reject  thee, — 
seeing  thou  hast  forgotten  the  law  of  thy 
God,  I  will  also  forget  thy  children.^*     The 


214  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

branch  may  be  broken  off  j  but  it  is  not  for 
man  to  tell  when  it  may  ever  please  God  to 
graft  it  in  again.  Oh  !  son — daughter — of 
the  covenant !  what  consequences, — aside 
from  the  condemnation  and  ruin  of  your 
own  soul — may  arise  from  your  unbelief, 
and  descend  in  fruits  of  wo  to  generations 
that  are  yet  unborn !  Let  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  which  was  impressed  upon  you 
with  the  tender  yearnings  of  parental  faith, 
remind  you  of  the  blessings  that  you  cast 
away  in  remaining  alienated  from  God.  Call 
not  down  upon  your  own  head  this  double 
ruin.  Break  not  away  from  the  cords  with 
which  God  himself  would  draw  you  to  sal- 
vation. Defeat  not  the  prayers  of  a  father's 
faith,  and  -of  a  mother's  love.  Compel  not 
the  mercy,  that  waits  to  save  you,  to  depart, 
and  to  give  you  up  to  the  hand  of  justice, 
as  one  who,  from  the  gates  of  heaven,  would 
thrust  himself  down  to  the  despair  of  hell. 

Children  of  the  covenant ;  ye  who  were 
in  your  infancy  dedicated  to  God  ;  your  pa- 
rents by  their  acts  bind  you  in  secular  mat- 
ters. God  and  the  laws  of  society  have 
given  them  this  prerogative,  not  for  their 
advantage,  but   for   yours.     It   is,  then,  no 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  215 

unprecedented  thing,  when  you  are  by  your 
parents  given  up  to  God  and  sealed  with 
his  seal.  He  claims  this  right  in  you  ;  the 
neglect  of  your  parents  would  not  have  al- 
tered his  claim.  But  would  you,  if  you 
could, — that  when  God  had  graciously  given 
his  covenant  for  their  advantage  and  for 
yours,  that  they  had  thrown  away  the  cove- 
nant and  denied  you  the  seal  %  Choose  you 
then,  to  throw  away  proffered  blessings,  and 
having  thrown  them  away,  to  take  your  lot 
with  the  world,  with  no  portion  but  in  the 
uncovenanted  mercies  of  God  1  Had  a  rich 
friend,  in  your  infancy,  offered  to  leave  you 
an  estate,  if  your  parent  ^vould  in  your  be- 
half undertake  the  trust  and  execute  the 
forms  ;  would  you  that  your  parent  had  re- 
fused the  gift  ;  and  especially  if  the  condi- 
tion of  the  gift  had  obliged  him  carefully  to 
train  you  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord  X  Surely,  you  would  not  be  so 
unwise.  Is  the  case  altered  when  God  him- 
self is  the  giver,  and  proffers  a  richer  por- 
tion than  all  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  ? 
Is  God  a  foe  to  offer  this  covenant  X  Is 
your  parent  a  foe  to  take  and  seal  it  \  That 
seal  is  to   you  a  token  no  less  of  privijeoe 


216  INFANT  BAPTISM.. 

than  of  obligation.  Will  you  thro^v  these 
promises  of  God  away  1  Will  you  deter- 
mine to  renounce  your  baptism,  and  render 
it  null  1  You  may  ;  but  not  with  ordinary 
guilt ;  especially  if  from  infancy  you  have 
been  the  child  of  prayers  and  tears  to  God 
for  your  salvation.  Oh  how  rich  this  boon 
of  the  covenant  and  its  seal,  which  thus 
pleads  with  you,  our  children,  to  be  the  child- 
ren of  your  fathers'  God  !  Will  you  disa- 
vow the  covenant  and  the  seal  %  Will  you 
disown  the  obligation  which  they  impose 
on  you  to  love  and  serve  Jehovah,  your  fa- 
thers' covenant  God  1  You  may  be  so  in- 
fatuated ;  but  God  will  not  for  this  release 
you  from  the  obligation.  You  may  sell 
your  birthright  like  Esau,  but,  like  Esau, 
you  may  find  no  place  for  repentance,  though 
you  seek  it  carefully  with  tears. 

O,  God  of  our  fathers !  our  covenant  God  ! 
Save  our  children  from  such  a  doom  as  this  1 
Seal  them  thine  own,  by  working  in  their 
souls  the  reality  of  that  which  is  signified 
by  the  outward  sign.  Make  them  thine  own 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  thy  name 
shall  have  all  the  praise,  for  ever.     Amen. 


APPENDIX. 

The  Assembly  of  Divines,  (p.  100.)  The  follow- 
ing are  extracts  from  Lightfoot's  "  Journal  of  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines." 

"  Thursday,  July  11,  1644. — Thea  began  we  the 
work  of  the  day,  about  the  Directory- for  Baptism." 

"  Wednesday,  Aug.  7. — This  proposition,  '  It  is 
lawful  and  sufficient  to  besprinkle  the  child,'  had 
been  canvassed  before  our  adjourning,  and  was 
now  ready  to  vote  :  but  I  spake  against  it  as  being 
very  unfit  to  vote  that  it  was  lawful  to  sprinkle, 
xchen  every  one  grants  it.  Whereupon  it  Avas  fal- 
len upon,  sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dipping 
should  be  tolerated  with  it.''  *  *  *  "  It  was  at  last 
put  to  the  question,  whether  the  Directory  should 
run  thus,  '  The  minister  shall  take  water  and  sprin- 
kle or  pour  it  with  his  hand  upon  the  face  or  lore- 
head  of  the  child:'  and  it  was  voted  so  indifferent- 
ly, that  we  were  glad  to  count  twice ;  for  so  many 
were  unwilling  to  have  dipping  excluded,  that  the 
votes  came  to  an  equality  within  one  ;  for  the  one 
side  was  twenty-four, — the  other  twenty-five."*  *  * 
"  And  when  we  had  done  all,  we  concluded  nothing 
in  it  ;   hut  the  business  was  recommitted.'" 

"  Aug.  8. — Mr.  Marshall  began,  and  he  said, 
hat  he  doubted  not  that  all  the  assemblv  conclud- 


218  APPENDIX. 

ed  that  dipping  was  lawful.  I  flatly  answered, 
that  I  held  it  UIlla^vful,  but  an  cOeXoeprnKia^  (will 
worship,  worship  invented  by  man,  supereroga- 
tion, Col.  ii.  23)  "and  therefore  desired  that  it 
might  be  proved.  But  it  was  thought  fit  to  go  to 
the  business  by  degrees."  The  Assembly  first  de- 
cided that  "  It  is  not  only  lawful,  but  also  suffi- 
cient," to  pour  or  sprinkle  water  on  the  face  of  the 
child.  "  But  as  for  the  dispute  itself,  about  dip- 
ping,^^  says  Lightfoot,  "  it  was  thought  fit  and 
most  safe  to  let  it  alone.''''  To  their  vote  concern- 
ing the  lawfulness  and  sufficiency  of  sprinkling, 
they  only  added  that  it  is  also  "  most  expedient," 
From  this  it  is  evident, 

1.  That  no  point  whatever  was  finally  settled  by 
a  majority  of  one.  After  that  vole,  the  "  business 
was  recommitted,"  and, "  nothing  concluded  in  it,'' 
on  that  vote  or  at  that  time. 

2.  There  was  no  "  substitution"  of  sprinkling  for 
immersion.  The  assertion  of  the  tract  of  the 
Baptist  General  Tract  Society,  on  both  these 
points,  is  wholly  untrue. 

A  writer  in  the  Baptist  Advocate  of  Sept.  12,, 
1840,  says,  of  this  action  of  the  Assembly  of  Divines, 
that  "A  single  casting  vote,  after  several  successive 
canvassings,  determined  for  the  Presbyterians  of 
England  and  Scotland,  that  sprinkling  should  be  the 
only  mode.  The  only  instance  of  definitive  rejec- 
tion," (viz.  of  dipping)  "  in  the  history  of  Christen- 
dom." This  statement  also  is  incorrect.  The  As- 
sembly of  Divines  did  not  determine  that  sprink- 


APPENDIX.  219 

ling  should  be  the  only  mode.  They  did  not 
"difinitively  reject"  dipping.  They  purposely 
dropped  all  dispute  about  the  lawfulness  of  dipping ; 
and,  as  Lightfoot  affirms,  they  thought  fit  and  safe 
to  "let  it  alone."  They  did  let  it  alone  in.  the 
Directory  ;  and  only  declared  sprinkling  or  pouring, 
lawful  and  sufficient  and  most  expedient ;  thus  pur- 
posely, and  with  full  understanding,  leaving  the 
mode  of  dipping  optional  to  them  who  should  pre- 
fer it. 

Infant  Baptism  in  Britain. — It  is  commonly  as- 
serted by  the  Baptists,  (see  Pengilly,  p.  83),  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  not  practised  in  Great  Britain, 
"  till  Pope  Gregory'  sent  over  Austin  to  convert  the 
people  to  the  Romish  faith,  A.  D.  596." 

Pelagius  was  a  native  of  Britain  (he  was  an  old 
man  in  404)  and  a  Briton  bred.  He  declares  that 
he  "  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the  most  impi- 
ous heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants." 

The  practice  which  the  Pilgrims  brovght  from 
England,  (see  p.  103). — Gov.  Winthrop  in  his  Jour- 
nal, Aug.  20, 1632,  mentions  that  upon  the  baptism 
of  his  child,  "  The  Governor  himself  held  the  child 
to  baptize,  as  others  in  the  congregation  did." 

He  narrates  also,  that  in  1640,  the  people  of 
"  Plimouth"  had  intended  to  call  "  one  Mr.  Chan- 
eye"  to  the  office  of  teacher ;  "  but  before  fit  time 
came,  he  discovered  his  judgment  about  baptism, 
that  the    children  ought   to  be  dipped  and  not 


220  APPENDIX. 

sprinkled,  and  he  being  an  active  man  and  very  ve- 
hement, there  arose  much  trouble  about  it."  *  *  * 
"  Whereupon  the  church  there  wrote  to  all  the 
other  churches  both  here,  (Boston),  and  at  Connecti- 
cut for  advice,  and  sent  Mr.  Chancy e's  arguments.  , 
The  churches  took  them  into  consideration  and 
wrote  their  several  answers,  wherein  they  showed 
their  dissent  from  him,  and  clearly  refuted  all  his 
arguments,  discovering  withal  some  great  mis- 
takes of  his  about  the  judgment  and  practice  of 
antiquity."  *  *  *  "  He  did  maintain  also  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  ought  to  be  administered  in  the 
evening,  and  every  Lord's  day."  —  Winthrop's 
Journal,  p.  200.      , 


1 


^ 


\mo 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


IS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Jli3»7^?Cil 


pill  III  iiiii  nil  III  III  II  flip 

1205  00344  1266^ 


j^ 


DC  SOUTHERN  BPGONAL  L-BO/ipv  c*C",'^ 


B     000  014  183     e 


A 


'•fllSiSS 

1 

